Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 401 - 500 of 851
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd also like to thank the member for his question.
We are working closely with the provincial and territorial premiers. Every week, the Prime Minister has a call with the premiers. [Technical difficulty—Editor] What we've been able to do in responding to this crisis is work together as “Team Canada”.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, members of this committee. I'll make a few introductory remarks and then I will be happy to answer your questions.
I'd like to acknowledge that we're gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin.
Let me start with very great pleasure by introducing the outstanding Canadian public servants who are here with me today and without whose hard work, dedication and intelligence this pivotal new agreement would not have been possible. I'm going to introduce the two people sitting next to me. Let me just say that they lead an outstanding team of Canadian professional trade negotiators. At a particularly rough moment during the negotiations, one of our negotiators said, “We think of ourselves as the Navy SEALs of Canada”. I think that is a very appropriate way for all of us to think of our outstanding professional trade negotiators.
With me is Steve Verheul, chief negotiator of NAFTA and assistant deputy minister of trade, and Kirsten Hillman, our acting ambassador to the U.S., as well as a trade negotiator of some renown.
I'm very pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-4, the act to implement the new NAFTA, the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.
Canada is a trading nation. Indeed, with the world's 10th largest economy, trade is the backbone of our economy. Trade is vital for the continued prosperity of Canadian workers, entrepreneurs, businesses and communities across the country.
Our government champions an open, inclusive society and an open global economy. These fundamental Canadian values transcend party and region. In fact, each of Canada's three major, recently concluded, trading agreements—the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and now the new NAFTA—were the outcome of efforts across party lines.
Canadians support free, fair, and balanced international trade, based on mutually agreed rules. These rules provide predictability and stability in how goods, services and investment are carried out between Canada and our major trading partners. We have seen remarkable success in this area.
In 1994 NAFTA created the largest free trade region in the world. In 2018 trilateral merchandise trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico reached nearly $1.2 trillion U.S., a fourfold increase since 1993.
Today the NAFTA region comprises almost 490 million consumers and has a combined GDP of more than $23.5 trillion U.S. Our three countries together account for more than one-quarter of the world's GDP, with less than 7% of its population. This record of growth is a tribute to all Canadians, to our entrepreneurs and our workers across this country. Trade between the NAFTA partners has helped us build a continental network of supply chains across a range of industrial and agricultural sectors. It has made Canada more competitive globally. It has created good jobs for Canadians and has fostered job-creating direct investment between Canada and the United States.
The new NAFTA helps ensure we maintain this vital relationship, and that we maintain predictability and stability in our commercial relationship with the United States—our closest, and overwhelmingly our largest, trading partner—and with Mexico.
The negotiations to modernize NAFTA were unprecedented in their intensity, scope and urgency. At the outset we faced a barrage of protectionist trade actions from the United States and the very real threat of a U.S. unilateral withdrawal from NAFTA altogether. Team Canada stood firm and team Canada stood united. Guided by strong support for free trade from Canadians across the country, at all orders of government across the political spectrum, from business to labour leaders to indigenous leaders, we sought advice and consensus and we acted in a united way.
I would today like to particularly thank the NAFTA council for its hard work. Together we worked tirelessly to modernize NAFTA for the 21st century and to extract further benefits for Canadians from a trading partnership that has been a model for the world, and that is exactly what we accomplished.
The new NAFTA preserves Canada's tariff-free access to the United States and Mexico. It restores and strengthens the predictability and stability of Canada's access to our largest market, and crucially, it does so in the face of rising protectionist sentiment south of our border and around the world. The new NAFTA improves on and modernizes the original agreement.
Allow me to highlight some of the key tangible benefits for Canadians.
First, this agreement protects $2 billion U.S. worth of daily cross-border goods and services trade between Canada and the United States. This means that 99.9% of Canadian exports to the United States are eligible for tariff free trade.
The new NAFTA preserves crucial cross-border auto supply chains, and provides an incentive to produce vehicles in Canada.
The agreement also commits all partners to comply with stringent labour standards, and strengthens labour obligations to help level the playing field for Canadian workers. Mexico has also undertaken specific commitments to provide for the protection and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.
I would add that our government is working in collaboration with the Mexican government to help Mexico implement its labour reforms.
Throughout the negotiations, Canada was confronted with the American tariffs that were unprecedented, unjust, and arbitrary with respect to Canadian steel and aluminum. We were able to avoid an escalation, however, without backtracking. We stayed focused on defending Canadian workers, their families, and their communities.
We succeeded, and those U.S. tariffs have been lifted.
There was an additional U.S. threat to impose a section 232 tariff on Canadian autos and auto parts. For Canada, that threat was lifted on November 30, 2018, the day we signed the new NAFTA and the day we signed a binding letter on 232 autos and auto parts with the United States. As a result, Canada's auto industry now has the stability to seek investment for further growth and innovation.
The new NAFTA also preserves elements of the original NAFTA that have been essential for Canada and were under threat.
It maintains chapter 29 regarding the dispute settlement mechanism for trade. This is a fair and impartial mechanism, which had been included in the original agreement thanks to the hard work accomplished by Canada. This mechanism has been beneficial for our forest sector workers well over the years, and has protected their jobs from unjust trade measures.
The new agreement preserves NAFTA’s cultural exception, which contributes to protecting more than 666,000 jobs in Canada’s cultural industries and is so pivotal to supporting the artists who tell our stories, in both official languages.
Critically, the new NAFTA maintains tariff-free access to the U.S. market for Canadian ranchers and grain farmers. We should never lose sight of the fact that the starting objective of the United States in the NAFTA negotiations was to abolish Canada's system of supply management.
We did not accept that. Instead, we stood up for Canadian farmers and preserved supply management for this generation and for those to come.
The agreement includes an enforceable environment chapter that requires NAFTA partners to maintain high levels of environmental protection, as well as ensuring sound environmental stewardship. In addition, it recognizes and supports the unique role of indigenous peoples in safeguarding and preserving our environment.
The new NAFTA contains ambitious and enforceable labour obligations to protect workers from discrimination in the workplace, including on the basis of gender.
In conclusion, the new NAFTA is good for continued economic growth and prosperity in Canada. It restores stability and predictability for exporters and for the hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers in our export-oriented industries. It allows us to put the uncertainty of recent years in the past.
Most importantly, the new NAFTA is pivotal in securing the future of good-quality Canadian jobs across our country as market access to the United States and Mexico will be assured—will be guaranteed—by the new NAFTA for years to come.
I want to be clear. We have come a long way. However, until this agreement is ratified by all three countries and enters into force, there continues to be risk and uncertainty, which will inevitably grow with the passage of time. This agreement has already been ratified by the United States and Mexico—our two other NAFTA partners.
Debate in Parliament, including at committees, is very important in our democracy, but the risk to Canada is also real. It is imperative we lock in the gains we have made with this agreement, the security we have achieved and the market access we have fought for by ratifying the new NAFTA without undue delay. That is what Canadians expect all of us to do and it's the right thing to do.
Thank you very much.
I'll be happy to take your questions.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
First of all, let me thank the member from Prince Albert for his question and for the many conversations that we have had together about the new NAFTA. We go back to the time when I was sitting on the other side of the House, and I had the opportunity to ask the then Conservative government questions about trade. I really respect you, Mr. Hoback, with your long experience of trade issues and trade agreements and the many years now that we have spent talking about them and working on them.
You've raised a number of issues. Let me take them in turn.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
When it comes to Parliament and the committee having time to discuss this agreement, let me just say that the NAFTA negotiation was a long and very public and very consultative process. Throughout that process I appeared many times. I believe it was a dozen times that I appeared before parliamentary and senate committees to answer questions about the new NAFTA. Officials will correct me if that's wrong, please. Canada's trade officials have been available to all parties to discuss the agreement.
I'm actually very proud of the extent to which the negotiation was a very public, very consultative process including members of Parliament, but more broadly also including members of the NAFTA council, including premiers, mayors, business leaders, labour leaders and indigenous leaders across the country.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Hoback, would you like me to finish answering all of your questions?
We have consulted extensively throughout the process, as is appropriate, and answered questions at committee and in Parliament throughout.
To the question of opposition parties having access to information about the final protocol of amendment, which has concluded the agreement and forms the body of the agreement we are now debating and seeking to ratify, immediately upon our conclusion of that protocol of amendment, we made our officials available to brief all the opposition parties. I know that Steve Verheul briefed all the parties, including the Conservative Party, including Mr. Scheer and his caucus. Information was made available right away.
To the idea that somehow we could have begun an official study of this agreement before the protocol of amendment was signed, let me simply say that it would have defeated the purpose of allowing Parliament and the committee to fully debate the finalized agreement. That finalized agreement was concluded only in December, after an extensive series of discussions between Canada, Mexico and the United States to introduce some further modifications to the agreement, which allowed for ratification in the U.S.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
When it comes to those modifications, let me say one thing very clearly and with absolute conviction, and that is that the modifications that we agreed to in the protocol of amendment in December are 100% in Canada's national interest. It is very rare to have a negotiation where you can say that, but that set of modifications made a good deal better for Canada.
I see that our chair is asking me to wind up. I would be happy to go into those further, and I'd be happy to say more about aluminum. I suspect Simon-Pierre may have some questions for me about that.
We shall see.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Arya. That is an excellent question. It points to something about the new NAFTA that is not fully appreciated by Canadians.
Something we have discussed often with the negotiators is that in many ways the negotiation around the new NAFTA was almost a two-level negotiation. There was the very high-profile set of issues, often about Canada's pushing back against unprecedented protectionist demands from the United States. That was what was most visible to Canadians, what Canadians were quite rightly most concerned about. Then there was a negotiation on what we sometimes have referred to as the set of bread and butter trade issues. These are the kinds of issues trade negotiations are more routinely concerned about, and they're where some of the greatest gains of NAFTA were won. Let me talk about a few of them.
One is that this agreement has very successfully removed a lot of the red tape associated with cross-border trade. In the consultations we did before and during the negotiation, one of the things we learned, and that we heard most urgently from Canadian businesses engaged in trade in the NAFTA region, was that their greatest issue was all the red tape involved in trade. We heard from a surprising number of businesses that simply didn't bother to claim their NAFTA preferences because the red tape was so overwhelming. Think about that. The weight of the red tape was greater than the value of the tariff-free access that NAFTA offered.
One of the real pluses of this agreement is that, working together with the United States and Mexico, we have done a very good job of cutting back a lot of the red tape by using some of the technologies that the 21st century allows to make it easier for people to trade. That is one of the things we did with NAFTA. It doesn't make a great headline, but it will make life easier for a lot of Canadian businesses and will make them much more competitive.
In terms of the 21st-century economy more broadly, that was another part of this that was beneath the sea level, if you think of an iceberg. There was the tip of the iceberg, the very visible struggles, and then there was all the rest of the iceberg. That was another part of all the rest of the iceberg of the negotiation: a stated effort where we had real agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to modernize this agreement, to make it relevant to the shape of the 21st-century economy, relevant for the service sector and for sectors of the economy that are based much more on intellectual property than on physical goods. I think we achieved a great deal there.
I would like to make one final point. When it comes to certainty in the future—and to me, this is a very important element of the new NAFTA, something that I hope we in Canada will be able to replicate—after an arduous process of negotiation, we have achieved an agreement that has strong cross-party support in both the U.S. and Mexico.
Mr. Hoback referred to the fact that the U.S. managed to ratify this agreement in the heat of the impeachment struggle in the U.S. We have, in the new NAFTA, an agreement that both Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump support. I struggle to think of anything else those two important American leaders both support. It's important for Canada that they both support it, because that gives us a real guarantee for the future.
Madam Chair is asking me to wrap up, but let me just conclude by also referring to our guest from Mexico, Mr. Seade. He represents a government that was not in office when the bulk of this agreement was negotiated. I would like to thank and acknowledge the work of Ambassador Seade, and also of President López Obrador. They did a difficult thing, which was to take an agreement that was negotiated by their predecessors and political opponents, take ownership of it and get it across the finish line. That's a real show of national unity in Mexico.
I think it would be great if we could accomplish the same thing here in Canada.
Thank you.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.
I am surprised that your first question is not about aluminum.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I see that, but I will be very happy to answer questions about aluminum too.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
In terms of the agreement overall, I would like to start by saying that I am convinced that it is a good agreement for Canada and for Quebec. I am convinced of that because there were long consultations and discussions with entrepreneurs, workers and leaders in Quebec. As you are well aware, Premier Legault has said openly and clearly on a number of occasions that he and the federal government agree that this agreement is very significant and good for Quebec. I agree with Mr. Legault.
I have also observed, both in the negotiations on NAFTA and in those on CETA, that Quebec is one of the provinces in Canada that understands the importance of international trade very well. Quebec has negotiators with a lot of experience and we worked in close collaboration with them.
As for agricultural and dairy producers, it is important to understand the context. As I said in my remarks, the United States began with a clear demand, to completely dismantle the supply management system. To me, that is an astonishing demand. As you are well aware, that has been what the United States has wanted for a number of years. Once again, they tried to completely dismantle our supply management system.
I believe they thought it would be possible. I am very proud that our government stood firm in its response. We said that it would not be possible and that we were going to keep our supply management system.
You are right when you say that, in the negotiations, we gave the United States a little more access to our market, as the previous government had done in the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (the TPP) and CETA. I agree with you and with the dairy producers of Canada that, as a result, it is essential for our government to provide fair and equitable compensation to Canadian dairy producers. I hope that all political parties will support that measure. Throughout the negotiations, I had long discussions with Canada's dairy producers. So the producers are well aware of everything that Canada has done.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the producers in the dairy sector for their support and collaboration. People in the sector are well aware that Canada lives in a world of international free trade. We need open markets, but we have to preserve a part of our own market by protecting our supply management system.
It is complex, it is difficult, and producers in the sector stood with us throughout the process. After the agreement is ratified—which I hope will be done quite quickly—it will be time to provide those producers with fair and equitable compensation.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
We will continue later.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for those questions, Mr. Blaikie, and also for the very detailed, professional conversations you and I have been having in recent weeks, and that have also involved our excellent trade officials who, I believe, have forgotten more about trade than any of us will ever learn.
I'd like to respond in two parts, first, talking about overall trade and progressive Canadians, and then second, about your specific proposals.
One of my objectives from the outset of this negotiation has been to achieve a truly progressive trade agreement, a trade agreement that Canadians, who perhaps traditionally have had doubts about the virtues of free trade, could support. That is why, among other things, we made a real effort to include union leaders, and I'd like to single out Hassan Yussuff, who I know has been speaking with you a lot as well, for his participation in the NAFTA council and for the advice he has offered throughout the negotiation.
Mr. Blaikie, you've pointed out two issues that progressives in Canada...and actually Mr. Manley has long been concerned about one of the issues you mentioned, ISDS. However, you mentioned concerns that progressives have long had with free trade agreements in general, and the new NAFTA in particular: ISDS and the proportionality clause. Two of the things I am the proudest of with the new NAFTA is that we have gotten rid of ISDS completely—a huge victory, a real benefit to Canada and a powerful precedent—and we have gotten rid of the proportionality clause.
I would also mention, as an element of the progressive trade agenda that we have not only articulated but done in the new NAFTA, the unprecedented protections for labour. Mexico—and again thank you very much, Ambassador Seade—as part of this agreement, has implemented historic labour reforms giving Mexican workers the right to organize. This agreement critically makes that commitment by Mexico enforceable. That is a huge win for workers in Canada, the United States and Mexico. The same is true of labour value content provisions. It is also true with our unprecedented environmental protections and protections for indigenous people and on the basis of gender.
Now I want to get to the second part of your question. I also would like this agreement, the entire negotiation process, ultimately, the ratification, to give us certainty in our trade with the U.S. and Mexico, but also to solidify the national consensus around Canada as a trading nation. I agree with you that transparency is a good thing. In the process of the NAFTA negotiation we have sought to be very transparent and very consultative with Canadians, but I agree with you that it would be a good thing to seek to formalize some of the things we have done. When it comes to the 90-day notification, let me simply say that Canadians had far more time than that to know we would be entering into a NAFTA negotiation, but it's a good thing to let Canadians know when we're contemplating working toward a trade agreement.
On the statement of objectives, we launched the NAFTA negotiation with a pretty long speech that I gave here in Ottawa, stating at some length what Canada's objectives would be. I think that was important for Canadians to hear. Again, I think that we would look very favourably at the notion of finding some way to codify that effort, likewise when it comes to sharing with Canadians our assessment of the economic impact of a particular deal.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Do I have to stop? Okay.
Let me simply conclude by saying, I think those are very constructive, productive ideas, and I thank you for putting them forward in such a thoughtful way. I am confident that working together we can find a way to give Canadians even more transparency, and confidence in more transparency, in future trade agreements.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Carrie. Although we can't and we will never agree on everything, I am pleased to learn that we do agree that the changes that were codified in the protocol of amendment in December with the U.S. and Mexico make what I would characterize as a good deal even better. It's good we can agree on that.
I won't spend too much time comparing the U.S. process with the Canadian process, except to say that, certainly from my perspective, our process is different because we are a parliamentary democracy and I think our Parliament is fantastic. I love the Canadian system of representative democracy, but the reality is that, in the U.S. House, the time of the finalization of the protocol of amendment to the time of the U.S. House actually ratifying this deal was a matter of weeks. It was a very, very—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
May I please finish? I listened to you without interruption.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
If you want to use the 40 seconds by talking, I'm happy to listen.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I think there are actually a number of questions. When it comes to the economic analysis, if the chair would like me to answer that now I can, or I will just begin my answer to the next question with an answer to that.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
We have absolutely nothing to hide. We are very confident that this is a good deal for Canada and Canadians, and I would also point out that this is not purely the judgment of our government. It is the judgment of the overwhelming number of Canadian businesses, Bay Street analysts, economists, labour leaders and business leaders across the country.
Thank you.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Let me, first of all, thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal, for the hard work that you have done throughout this negotiating process. I know this agreement is important to you personally, and to your constituents. It's been a pleasure to work with you on it.
I'd like to start by being a little more precise on the times when, throughout the agreement, I have appeared before committee. I believe that I have appeared before committee to talk about NAFTA four times already. Those were August 14, 2017; February 8, 2018; June 19, 2018; and May 28, 2019—that's for House committees. We'll give you more information in due course about Senate committees. I did refer to previous committee appearances and I wanted to be precise about that.
When it comes to women and girls, that is actually one of the lesser-known successes of this trade agreement. In this agreement, we were able to achieve new—much greater than we have in the current NAFTA—protections for Canadian women and girls, and protections for Canadians when it comes to labour issues in particular, such as that Canadians and their gender identification should not be a cause for discrimination.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we were also able to achieve unprecedented protections for indigenous people, including the special role indigenous people have when it comes to protecting our environment.
These are really some new areas for trade agreements to codify. It's part of what I was speaking about with Mr. Blaikie, of the progressive trade agenda that our government has sought to put forward. We had put together in the trade team an entirely new group of officials who, for the first time, were working together specifically on the indigenous issues. It is really new ground for Canada. There is a lot more to be done, but I am pleased that we were able to move the puck forward when it comes to protections for women, protections for girls, protections for LGBTQ people and protections for indigenous people in this landmark agreement.
When it comes specifically to the protections for indigenous people, I would like to thank, by name, Perry Bellegarde. He was a member of our NAFTA council. He worked very hard with us on all aspects of the new NAFTA but in particular on the indigenous issues, and he worked with indigenous partners across North America. I think this is an area in which, going forward, when it comes to trade agreements, Canada will need to continue to do more work. With the new NAFTA, we have laid what I believe are some really important, really valuable foundations.
The protections for indigenous people, for women and girls, and for LGBTQ Canadians are part of the labour and environmental chapters where, overall, we have made some really great progress, both in the specific content of those chapters and also.... Again, I'm turning to Mr. Blaikie as well, because this has long been a concern—I'll finish, Madam Chair—of progressive people thinking about trade. It has been to do better on labour and the environment, but also to do better when it comes to enforceability. I think one of the very strong features of the new NAFTA is much greater enforceability on the environmental chapter and particularly on the labour chapter.
Thank you.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
When it comes to the supply management sector, let me start by saying something that it is very important. In this negotiation, Canada faced an unprecedented U.S. demand. It was an explicit and open demand that we dismantle the supply management system entirely. The U.S. starting position was that, for us to do a deal with the United States to preserve our essential market access, the price would be to entirely do away with supply management. It's very important for Canadians to be clear that was the U.S. position.
I really want to thank the members of Canada's supply management sector, Canadian farmers, who have an extremely sophisticated understanding of trade agreements, and with whom we consulted extensively. They were very aware of what the U.S. position was, and they were very aware of the extreme lengths that Canada went to in order to preserve our supply management system.
I am very pleased with the outcome we achieved, which was that, by offering limited access to the Canadian market, we were able to preserve our supply management system.
I would point out as well, and we've been asked this question already and I think it is an important one, that we do recognize that this part of the agreement does mean that our supply management farmers are absolutely entitled to fair and equitable compensation. That is something to which this government is absolutely committed. It's something I'm very happy to reiterate today so that all Canadian supply management farmers to know that, once we get this agreement ratified—and we're in the process of it entering into force—the government is absolutely committed to putting in place fair and equitable compensation for our supply management farmers.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Michael. Thank you, everyone.
Good morning, everyone.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.
Mr. Chair, honourable colleagues, thank you for inviting me to appear before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to briefly review some of our government's foreign policy priorities, as well as the important work that we are continuing to do to address the challenges facing Canada and the world.
As we approach the end of this parliamentary session, I would also like to express my gratitude to all members of the committee for the work they have undertaken in recent years in support of Canada's foreign policy.
Let me also introduce the extremely able team of public servants who are here serving all of us today.
Marta Morgan is the newly appointed deputy minister of foreign affairs.
I think this is your first public outing.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Marta is, I believe, the first woman deputy minister of global affairs. Congratulations. It's great.
Arun Thangaraj is our Chief Financial Officer. He is the guy who keeps the trains running on time. It's a huge department. You do a great job, Arun. Thank you also.
Here's a man who needs no introduction: Steve Verheul, our chief NAFTA negotiator and CETA and section 232.
Having recently attended meetings of the Arctic Council in Finland, I would also like to take the opportunity to publicly thank the members of this committee for their shared, collective, cross-party leadership on the Arctic and for the excellent report and recommendations.
The most pressing issues facing the Arctic, such as climate change and advancing the interests of indigenous people in the north, require broader public attention, and your work has helped to advance these important issues. Thank you very much. It's very impressive.
Around the world we see a growing trend of leaders and voters who question the value of the rules-based international order and, indeed, of liberal democracy itself. That's why countries, like Canada, who believe in liberal democracy and the rules-based international order now need to fight back. Doing so is vitally important to our national interest. Canada, with just 36 million Canadians, can never thrive in a great power world where might makes right. That's why Canada today is one of the most ardent defenders in the world of liberal democracy and the rules-based international order.
Earlier this spring I represented Canada at ministerial meetings of two of the most important multilateral institutions of which Canada is a member: NATO and the G7. These gatherings offered the opportunity to reiterate Canada's strong support for the rules-based international order; to discuss how we can further work together to defend this order from maligned foreign interference and the rise of authoritarianism; and to discuss how, working together, we can solve some of the greatest global challenges of our time, like climate change, the hollowing out of the western industrial middle class, and global refugee crises.
Allow me to highlight some of the key areas in which Canada is working concretely to defend and maintain rules-based international order, starting with trade.
Rules-based trade doesn't guarantee peace between nations and doesn't make the multilateral system infallible, but it does help.
That is why working together for free trade is essential. Last fall, Canada concluded negotiations on the new NAFTA with the U.S. and Mexico. In November, we signed the agreement on the margins of the G20 summit in Argentina.
Throughout our intense negotiations, we stayed focused on what really matters to Canadians: jobs, growth and expanding the middle class. We held out for a good deal and that's what we got. We guaranteed continued access to our largest export market for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, and we succeeded in preserving key elements of NAFTA, including chapter 19, the all-important dispute settlement mechanism, and the cultural exemption.
We addressed important bread and butter issues by cutting red tape to make it easier for Canadian businesses to export to the U.S. market. Despite this success, one major hurdle remained. The U.S. section 232 “national security” tariffs on steel and aluminum.
When the U.S. imposed tariffs, Canada retaliated, imposing dollar-for-dollar countermeasures. We stood firm in our position that these tariffs were not appropriate between two countries which, in addition to being important national security partners and allies, also had a free trade agreement. This was a point we made clearly to the U.S. administration, to members of Congress and to labour and business leaders south of the border.
As a result, just over a week ago, Canada successfully negotiated the complete lifting of U.S. tariffs. As I said last week when I visited Canadian steel and aluminum workers in Regina and Saguenay, that is why we succeeded. We knew that the facts were on our side. We knew we were not a risk to the national security of the United States. We knew that our steel trade with the United States was balanced. We remained united. We have been patient. We have been persistent.
The result was that Canada successfully negotiated a full lift of the tariffs just over a week ago. Here is why we succeeded. We knew the facts were on our side. We know that we are not a national security risk to the United States. We know that our trade in steel with the United States is balanced. We stayed united. We were patient. We were persistent. I think persistence and unity are some great Canadian values, and I'm really proud of the way our whole country came together in this effort.
Our government's position was that it would be difficult to move ahead with the ratification of the new NAFTA while the tariffs were in place. Now that the tariffs have been lifted, our government intends to move ahead with ratification. We know that having the new NAFTA ratified will provide economic certainty for Canadians.
Elsewhere in the world, Canada is using its voice to advocate for the rules-based international order. I recently travelled to Kiev, following the presidential elections in Ukraine. This was an opportunity for me to meet with the newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky. I reiterated Canada's continued support for Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as our commitment to continue working with the international community to maintain pressure on Russia.
To support elections and democracy in Ukraine, our government contributed short-term and long-term election observers as part of the Canadian election observation mission. It has been very ably led by former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy. Our observers will be back for the parliamentary elections in July. We have also provided a $2.8-million assistance package to counter foreign disinformation in the Ukrainian parliamentary elections and presidential elections now past.
In another important show of support for Ukraine, on March 15, Canada, the EU and the U.S. announced new sanctions in response to Russia's aggressive actions in the Black Sea and the Kerch Strait and Russia's illegal annexation and ongoing occupation of Crimea.
I was also pleased to announce a three-year extension of our training mission to Ukraine, Operation Unifier, through which Canadian soldiers have helped to train more than 11,000 Ukrainian troops. I've heard first-hand about how valuable that training has been.
Russian aggression to Crimea and eastern Ukraine poses an existential threat to Ukraine. At the same time, Ukraine faces serious domestic challenges, particularly the need to reform its post-Soviet economy. To support this work, Canada will host the third annual international Ukraine reform conference early this summer in Toronto.
Last year, Canada deployed about 1,000 Canadian soldiers to provide NATO and Euro-Atlantic security, including under the leadership of the NATO mission in Iraq and NATO's enhanced Forward Presence battlegroup in Latvia, the air force in Romania and our military support to Ukraine.
Canada is proud to lead the NATO mission in Iraq. As part of this non-combat-oriented training and capacity-building mission, NATO supports efforts to train Iraqi security forces in their efforts to prevent the re-emergence of Daesh and other terrorist groups.
In terms of peacekeeping, the United Nations and partner countries strongly and publicly support Canada's work. At the recent UN Peacekeeping Ministerial, the Secretary-General praised Canada's contribution, in particular the Elsie Initiative, which aims to increase the meaningful participation of women in peace operations.
In our own hemisphere, the world has watched with great concern as Venezuela, under Nicolas Maduro's rule, has systematically dismantled democratic institutions and violated human rights. The Maduro regime has created a political, economic and humanitarian crisis. As a result, millions have fled the country and millions more are suffering due to severe shortages of food, medicine and the necessities of life.
Canada has been leading on this issue alongside our partners, the other members of the Lima Group, which has met 13 times since its formation in August 2017. The members of the Lima Group are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and St. Lucia. These countries joined—indeed, led—almost 50 others around the world in recognizing Juan Guaido as interim president, in line with the Venezuelan constitution.
Two weeks ago, I was at a meeting in Havana, Cuba, to discuss the economic, political and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and the work we can undertake together to address it. We will continue to support the path forward as outlined by the national assembly and interim President Guaido and to oppose outside military intervention. A peaceful transition of power needs to be led by Venezuelans themselves.
Last fall, the House of Commons recognized that the violence perpetrated against the Rohingya by Myanmar's security forces constitutes genocide. I commend many members of this committee for your leadership on this issue. I would also like to recognize the work of Bob Rae, who was appointed as Canada's special envoy to Myanmar. He published an important report on his work and findings there.
The atrocities committed against the Rohingya, including terrible sexual violence, have led nearly one million Rohingya to flee the country into neighbouring Bangladesh. Canada has committed $300 million over three years for humanitarian assistance, development, and peace and stabilization efforts. We will continue to work with our allies and partners, very much including Bangladesh, to resolve the crisis and ensure justice for the survivors of this genocide.
In our work to support liberal democracy and the rules-based international order, we recognize that we are most effective when we work with like-minded partners. That is why we are so pleased that Canada will join the U.K. in co-hosting the first global conference for media freedom. The conference will take place in the U.K. in July. We will be working together to further advance the cause of a free and independent press globally. This is such an important pillar of liberal democracy.
Mr. Chair, I would like to end on a difficult but important note. I am sure members of this committee, like all Canadians, are concerned by the arbitrary detentions of Canadians in China. This is indeed a difficult time in our relationship with China.
Chinese officials have been clear that from their perspective, these difficulties began with an extradition request from the United States. We complied, as we are committed to doing under our extradition treaty with the United States in place since 1976. I am confident that was the right thing to do, and I am confident Canadians know that. We are a rule-of-law country, and we are a country that honours our treaty commitments.
This was not a political decision. It was not a political message, and there has been no political involvement.
We strongly condemn the arbitrary arrest of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. The Government of Canada continues to call for their immediate release. I want to assure everyone here and everyone listening that this is a top priority for the Prime Minister, for our whole government and for me personally.
Many countries share our concern, and we have rallied an unprecedented number of partners around the world in support of Canada's position. Canada continues to express its appreciation to those who have spoken in support of these detained Canadians and the rule of law, including: Australia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the EU, the G7 and NATO.
Our government is seized of these cases and is using any and every opportunity to raise them with our allies and partners. Here and in China, we have made our position clear to the Chinese authorities. Just last week, my parliamentary secretary, Rob Oliphant, was in China as part of a parliamentary delegation, where he raised this issue directly with the officials he met.
Thank you for doing that, Rob.
We will continue to advocate on behalf of these brave Canadians.
In conclusion, I do want to express how much sympathy I have for the Spavor and Kovrig families. They are supporting both Michaels with incredible grace and determination.
With that, I will be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question, Erin. I'm very glad that we're starting with that issue.
The consular access is limited, but it exists. I have reports immediately after the consular visits. I would like to say that one of the things we do that Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor both ask for is for them to hear about the continued efforts we're making on their behalf. I hear after every visit that it makes a real difference to them to know that we are fighting for them and standing up for them and to know what we are doing.
I would also like to say—and really pay tribute to both of them—that the situation is very difficult. Both of them are incredibly resourceful and incredibly brave and are handling themselves under highly inappropriate circumstances very, very well.
Finally, I do want to thank the Canadian diplomats in China who are providing very strong consular support for the two Michaels in what are also difficult circumstances for our diplomats.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm going to speak for a moment about the extradition process, because that's a very important point for our Chinese interlocutors also. I'd like to take the opportunity again to point out—and this has a very important bearing on the circumstances of the two Canadians—that as everyone on this committee knows, it is not a political process. It is a question of the rule of law. It is a question of Canada honouring its treaty commitments. As has been said clearly—but I think it's really important for our Chinese interlocutors to understand this—this was not a political decision and there was no political interference.
We immediately ensured that Ms. Meng had consular access provided to her. That was a very important point. It was important for the Chinese authorities to be able to have access to her, just as it is important for us to have access to our detained Canadians, so there was an immediate outreach and contact with the Chinese authorities.
When it comes to my contacts with my Chinese counterparts, I have spoken on a few occasions directly with the Chinese ambassador to Canada. I would be happy at any time to have a direct conversation with Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister. We have been clear with the Chinese authorities that we are prepared for that conversation at any time. I'm happy to offer that invitation at another time—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
In fact, our outreach to China happened before the detention of the Canadians. Our outreach to China happened immediately upon the detention of Ms. Meng, as is appropriate.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Probably it's not very appropriate to talk about in camera conversations, but at any rate, I wasn't present for those.
Let me simply say, as is best practice and as Canada always does, upon the detention of Ms. Meng, Chinese authorities were immediately engaged because they were offered consular access to her. That is how we expect Canadians to be treated when they are detained abroad, and that is what we do for all detained foreign nationals in our country.
Hon. Erin O'Toole: So—
Hon. Chrystia Freeland: Hang on, Erin.
Chinese authorities were immediately engaged in that way. When it comes to engagement at other levels, let me be very clear with Canadians and also to reiterate to the Chinese authorities—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Hang on, Erin. It is our understanding that in these situations the Chinese practice tends to be—and Canada is not the only country that has found itself in this situation—to hold off on meetings at the highest level.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for that important question, Mr. Baylis.
Again, I would like to publicly thank Steve Verheul and the entire Canadian negotiating team. Our negotiators are really the best in the world. I think I can tell you what one of the negotiators working with Mr. Verheul told me during the negotiations. He said,
You know, we're like the navy seals of Canada.
It was in Washington, after a very long day. All Canadians should be proud of the professionalism and patriotism shown by our negotiators. It is a privilege and an honour to work with Mr. Verheul and his team.
With respect to the new NAFTA, I would like to highlight two points that are important to Canadians. Our priority has always been to maintain access to the American market. We have access to it right now because we have NAFTA. This agreement is now in effect and offers us very significant economic opportunities. As everyone knows, this access was threatened. Indeed, the Americans wanted to hold new negotiations and modernize the agreement. However, we have been able to negotiate a new agreement that will allow us to maintain our access to the American market, which is so important to us.
As I said in my remarks, the following two elements were very important to us during the negotiations. We wanted to maintain chapter 19, which is very important for all Canadian industries, perhaps especially for the softwood lumber industry. We also wanted to maintain the cultural exception, which is also very important for all Canadians.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I certainly can, Frank. I would be happy to do so.
Steve and I spent quite a lot of time on that side letter, as did a much broader group. Maybe this is an opportunity for me to single out Martin Thornell, for his extremely hard work on the car issue. He is our rules of origin negotiator. He is a really brilliant person and he is very committed.
On the car sector in general, I also want to take this opportunity to thank Flavio Volpe, the Canadian car companies and car parts manufacturers and the union leaders, all of whom we worked with very closely on this effort. In fact, as the final details of the side letter were being negotiated, Steve and I were on the phone constantly, hour by hour, with these people. They really helped us shape the final agreement.
Another important thing for people to understand is that the side letter has entered into force already. It was signed on November 30 in Argentina by me and Ambassador Lighthizer. It now applies.
That's a very important point for—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes, I think that's what you're getting at, Frank. It's a really important point because as the United States has said publicly, the U.S. section 232 investigation on cars is now complete and the U.S. has said that over the next six months they want to have negotiations with Japan and the European Union.
The Canadian car sector is safe because that side letter is essentially an insurance policy, which means that in the event of section 232 action, our industry would not be affected.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for this question.
Welcome to the committee. I think this is the first time we've spoken here, you and I.
I can assure you that after Mr. Khashoggi's murder, no new arms export permits to Saudi Arabia were granted. That's what we have announced, that's what we have done and continue to do. It's a matter we take very seriously. We are looking at the situation.
I would like to highlight something important. Agnès Callamard, the UN Special Rapporteur, is currently investigating the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I spoke with Ms. Callamard on the phone, and I have also met with her at the UN. We fully support her work.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's an important question. One of the elements of this revision is the investigation into the death of Jamal Khashoggi. That's why I talked about Agnès Callamard's work. The death of Jamal Khashoggi is one of the causes that inspired the press rights conference in England, which I have already mentioned. Jeremy Hunt, the British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and I announced the conference in France during the G7 meeting. We mentioned that the death of Jamal Khashoggi was one of the elements that inspired the conference.
You know, from speaking in the House, that the war in Yemen is one of the issues we're working very hard on. This is a significant part of this big issue. A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with Martin Griffiths. Canada is strongly committed to the process. With Mr. Griffiths, we are looking for a way to reach a ceasefire, to find peace in Yemen.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
You said there were 30 seconds left?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay.
So I'll raise two points. I share your concerns about the war in Yemen. I think this is a crucial issue and a very important part of this discussion. For that reason, Canada is very committed to this. I would like to stress something, because it's important—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
May I finish my intervention?
From the moment Jamal Khashoggi died, new export permits were not granted. This is an important fact.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I am very happy to talk about this.
Maybe I'll start with a phone conversation I had this morning before coming to the committee, where I had a chance to speak to Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State.
Because the section 232 tariffs are on national security grounds, this was an issue that was appropriate to raise with the Secretary of State. Also, I do want to thank my colleague Harjit Sajjan who raised the issue very effectively with the Pentagon.
This morning I had a chance to thank Secretary Pompeo for the work he did on this, which I think was considerable.
I think this is really a story of our country being united, of our country being persistent, of our country understanding that facts matter and of our country being resolute.
You guys should talk to Steve afterwards, because I'll be interested in his view, but I think the lifting of the tariffs actually started on July 1, when our retaliatory measures took effect. It was the largest trade action that Canada had taken since the Second World War. It was a clear sign that Canada would act in response.
It was also important that we took that action, as I believe the Prime Minister put it at the time, more in sorrow than in anger, that we understood that this action was harmful to everybody, that having tariffs between Canada and the U.S. just made no sense and hurt people on both sides of the border, and that—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
The fact that we acted strongly from the outset was absolutely essential. I know there were voices in Canada that called on us publicly to drop the retaliation. I'm glad we didn't listen to those voices.
The retaliation was difficult. It was difficult to stay the course, but that was absolutely essential.
I do want to thank another person and I'd like to just mention a couple of other things.
We were able to work very closely with the leaders of the steel and aluminum sectors, both industry and unions. We had a meeting of the steel CEOs last Friday in Toronto. Steve was there, as was Ambassador MacNaughton. The steel CEOs said to me and Steve that they would miss our sometimes nearly weekly Friday get-togethers. I do really want to commend both of those sectors for doing the homework that was necessary for us to support them. They worked hard. They got together.
I'll also mention Catherine Cobden. She is the head of the steel association and she did a really good job of bringing those people together.
A final person who I think it's worth mentioning is Senator Chuck Grassley, the chair of the U.S. Senate finance committee. He has been very clear about his view that the section 232 tariffs needed to be lifted. He wrote an important op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on April 29, where he said explicitly that NAFTA could not be ratified in the U.S. Senate as long as the tariffs were in place.
I have been in close touch with Senator Grassley. I've met him twice in person and spoken to him often on the phone. Our ambassador, David MacNaughton, and our embassy have been working closely with him and his staff. His strong work and his strong credibility really also made an important difference.
I emphasize that because it's important for us to recognize a good trade deal—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Sorry for letting my enthusiasm about section 232 take over.
Yes, the Columbia River Treaty is obviously an important treaty for B.C. in particular, but also for all of Canada. I was recently in Castlegar in the Columbia River basin.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
One important thing we were able to do and announce there is that, for the first time in a Canadian treaty negotiation, the indigenous people will be represented at the table, sitting on the Canadian side—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes. Thank you for the question. It's a really important issue.
The situation in Venezuela is a tragedy. Venezuela not so long ago was among the richest countries in our hemisphere, and it has now been reduced to a terrible state of human misery. There has been, by the Maduro regime, a systematic and intentional dismantling of Venezuelan democracy. That is why we, the hemispheric partners of Venezuela, had to act, and we are acting.
On a few specifics, I can announce a few things that are happening. Next Monday, June 3, we will have a meeting in New York of three countries of the Lima Group—Canada, Chile and Peru—with the European-led ICG, led by Federica Mogherini. The foreign minister of Portugal will also be there. That's an effort to continue our work with international partners.
It's important because I think one of the really central positive facts in a tragic situation over the past few months has been the very wide international recognition of Juan Guaido as the legitimate interim president of Venezuela. The European Union and the European Union countries have been central in that, so it's an important meeting.
We will also be having a meeting of the Lima Group in Guatemala on Thursday, June 6, which I will be attending, to continue the conversation.
Obviously one of the issues I discussed with Secretary Pompeo this morning was the situation in Venezuela, and we continue to be working closely with our American partners.
I'd like to mention for Canadians two other aspects of this. I spoke about—and it is really an overwhelming concern of mine—the threat to liberal democracy in the world today and the rise of authoritarianism. In a world that is facing that challenge, our hemisphere has been doing pretty well. You could even describe our hemisphere as one of the refuges for liberal democracy in the world. I think that's one of the reasons it is so important for Canada and for our hemispheric partners to stand up in support of democracy and human rights in Venezuela.
The second element of the Lima Group I want to quickly mention is that I really think a key tool of diplomacy and foreign policy today and in the years to come is assembling multilateral coalitions of like-minded countries to work on pressing issues. The Lima Group is a fantastic example of that, and I am really proud of the countries of our hemisphere coming together to do that work, so I really thank our Lima Group partners.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question.
I do know about the Rohingya community in your riding. It is a small but mighty Canadian community. I've met with leaders of that community.
I'm glad you mentioned their specific work, because I think a strength of Canada is the fact that we have many Canadians who are personally connected and engaged with so many parts of the world. I have learned a lot about the Rohingya—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
—from Canadian Rohingyas.
I'm also really glad—and I'd like to say this to everyone on the committee—that our country and our Parliament were able to acknowledge what has happened to the Rohingya as a genocide. It's a very important step, and I'm glad for us, as a country, that we did it.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
You may find it difficult to believe, but it is absolutely the case that the issue was not raised with me by anyone. My own position on the importance of speaking up for human rights is well known, and let me also add, that's the right thing.
I really want to say that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is long-standing and has many different elements, and that is a relationship which is ongoing. Having said that, particularly today, when human rights are under attack in so many parts of the world, when fewer countries are prepared to raise their voice and speak up for human rights, I strongly believe that is something Canada needs to do. We need to speak out for human rights activists who are under pressure, including women activists. That is something we have done and we will continue to do. I strongly believe that is something Canadians think is the right thing and they support.
Specifically—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Hang on, hang on.
Subsequent events have shown—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
No, that's not what I'm trying—
Hon. Erin O'Toole: If we have no relationships—
Hon. Chrystia Freeland: Erin, that is not what I'm trying to do. I—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Let me just say that I think the Canadian position—and really, the strength and power of our voice when it comes to defending human rights—has been recognized by the fact that Great Britain chose Canada as its partner for the international media freedom conference. That was very much inspired by the appropriate outrage that people feel about the terrible murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Frankly, I'm rather surprised that the Conservative Party would not be supportive of speaking up for human rights.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Let me strongly disagree with that characterization of Canada's position in the world. You've mentioned a number of unrelated cases. When it comes to the Philippines specifically, I spoke on Sunday in a very positive conversation with the foreign secretary of the Philippines. We are working effectively and constructively with the Philippines to resolve that situation.
More broadly, let me just say this. The world—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I didn't interrupt you, Erin. I'd like you to listen to me and pay me that courtesy, please.
More broadly, I meant what I said. The world is at a worrying inflection point. We are at a time when authoritarian regimes are on the rise, when liberal democracy is under assault and when the rules-based international order is under threat. Canada has a couple—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm going to say two more sentences, Michael.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Canada is doing a lot in that environment. First of all, in the most protectionist climate since the Second World War we have secured not one, not two, but three global trade deals. That is astonishing and meaningful for Canadians.
Second of all, we are building new, original and effective multilateral alliances to speak up for the rules-based international order, as we discussed with the Lima Group, as we will be doing in Britain over the summer to support media freedom.
Third, I will never apologize for our speaking out in defence of human rights, even when sometimes some people don't like it. You have to have the courage of your convictions, and I believe that's something Canadians believe in.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mark. Thank you, everyone. It has been a busy year for all of us, and I would like to join Mark in thanking the people who work so hard to make the work of this committee possible.
I am joined here by two people well known to the committee and to Canadians: Tim Sargent, Deputy Minister for International Trade, and Steve Verheul, who, as I think people know, is our chief NAFTA negotiator.
I'll make some opening remarks and then I'll be happy to answer questions.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we're gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquins.
I'm here today to speak about anything people ask me about, but chiefly about the Canada-U.S. trade relationship. It is that part of my set of responsibilities that is of specific interest, I think, to this committee.
I want to start by taking this opportunity to thank Canadians and leaders from across the country for our unified Team Canada approach to this specific issue. I am very humbled and very appreciative of this effort, and I want to specifically recognize Canada's premiers, labour leaders, business leaders, and members of the NAFTA Council for their tremendous work to date. I do want to acknowledge the work of members of Parliament from all parties, very much including the members of this committee, mayors, civil society, and frankly, many Canadians who have been personally involved and engaged in this effort.
I think there is a broad national recognition that this is a consequential issue for our country. I certainly feel that when I talk to my constituents—or really, I should say, when my constituents talk to me—and I imagine that all of you have had the same experience.
The Canada-U.S. economic relationship is an essential one. One of the things that has been so valuable to Canada is the fact that we are playing as a united team. That is essential. It sends a powerful message to all Canadians and a very powerful message to the United States.
Mr. Chair, dear colleagues, thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the committee today.
I will do my best to explain point of view of the government on the tariffs imposed by the United States on Canadian steel and aluminum, and more generally on the status of NAFTA negotiations.
Allow me to begin with tariffs.
Canada is a friend and ally of the United States, and its closest neighbour. We share the longest non-militarized border in the world. Our soldiers fought together and died side by side during the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, and in Afghanistan and Iraq. As I have said on several occasions, the idea that we might constitute a threat to American national security—the pretext invoked by our neighbours to impose these tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports—is not only absurd, it is hurtful.
These section 232 tariffs, Mr. Chair, are illegal under WTO and NAFTA rules. In fact, we have initiated a case at the WTO and have raised a case under chapter 20 of NAFTA.
As a supporter of the rules-based international order, very much including in trade, it was important for Canada to take this legal action, and I'd like to take this opportunity also to thank the very hard-working, committed, and creative Government of Canada trade lawyers who've been working very hard on this file.
Now Canada has no choice but to retaliate with a measured, perfectly reciprocal, dollar-for-dollar response, and we will do so. On May 31, the Prime Minister and I announced that Canada intends to impose tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum and other products from the United States, representing the total value of 2017 Canadian exports affected by the U.S. measures. That is $16.6 billion, Mr. Chair, Canada's strongest trade action since the Second World War.
Since we made that announcement, we have published two lists, one list that will be subject to a 25% tariff and a second list that will be subject to a 10% tariff. These countermeasures will only apply to goods originating from the United States. They will take effect on July 1 and will remain in place until the United States eliminates its trade-restrictive measures against Canada.
Consultations on these lists concluded on June 15.
I'd like to make a particular point, Mr. Chair, that in putting together these lists, the government and our fine officials have worked really hard to find lists that have the minimal impact on Canadians. Where possible we have sought to avoid intermediate goods and to put products on the list that can be easily sourced from either Canadian or other non-U.S. suppliers.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all the Canadians who have been very actively engaged in the consultations on these lists, including through their members of Parliament. I've heard directly from many MPs, including members of this committee, about feedback you've had from your constituents and your stakeholders about what should be on the lists. That has been very useful.
Although the formal consultation period is finished, we are still interested in feedback from Canadians. They should be in touch with the government, with Steve and his team, with the Department of Finance, and of course people can always be directly in touch with me. As we take these steps in response to the section 232 tariffs, we act in close collaboration with our like-minded partners in the European Union and Mexico. It's important to point out that these countries, also subject to the section 232 tariffs from June 1, are also allies of the United States.
Mr. Chair and colleagues, we know that no one will benefit from this beggar-thy-neighbour approach to trade. The price will be paid in part by American consumers and by American businesses. I think we all agree that it is important for Canada to stand in defence of the international rules-based order, and we will do so. Canada's policy will be that we will not escalate and we will not back down. Judging by the feedback I have received in the past few weeks, countless Canadians of all political points of view agree. Very many have come out in support of our decision to defend Canadian workers, and I would like to thank all members of the House of Commons, particularly Tracey Ramsey, for the unanimous consent motion that we all passed supporting this action. I think that was a very strong measure; I have shared it with our counterparts in the United States. I'm glad we were able to do it. It's a testament to Canadian unity on this issue, and I'd like to thank provincial and territorial leaders, including Premier-designate Ford, Premier Moe, and Premier Horgan, as well as the CLC and so many others for their support.
One thing I do want to point out, Mr. Chair, is that this unjustified section 232 action by the United States is quite separate from the ongoing negotiations between Canada, the United States, and Mexico to modernize NAFTA. As far as Canada is concerned, these are entirely separate issues, and I'd like to point out this is also the case under U.S. law, given that section 232 is a national security provision.
We know that NAFTA is very much to the advantage of all three NAFTA countries. When it comes to trade between Canada and the United States, our relationship is balanced and mutually beneficial. In fact, in goods and services overall, the U.S. has a slight trade surplus with Canada. The U.S. also has a surplus in trade in manufactured goods, in agricultural goods, and perhaps particularly relevant today, in trade in steel. As I know all of us are very well aware, Canada is the largest market for the United States—larger than China, Japan, and the U.K. combined.
A modernized win-win-win deal that benefits all three NAFTA partners is possible, Mr. Chair, and we continue to work hard and patiently to achieve this outcome. That was the point I made last Thursday when I met with Ambassador Lighthizer in Washington and again when I spoke to him over the telephone yesterday.
I also had a constructive conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday, which included a discussion of NAFTA and the section 232 tariffs. I remain convinced that there is goodwill and a desire to move forward on the NAFTA negotiations, and we have heard that publicly from Secretary Pompeo as recently as yesterday.
Our government feels that now we can continue working on the NAFTA negotiations. We will be working hard over the summer.
Thank you very much.
I'm happy to answer people's questions now.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for the question.
Thank you, Dean, if I may. Can we be on a first-name basis? I'm happy for people to call me by my first name. Thank you for your hard work on this issue and for working so closely with stakeholders.
As I said, the formal consultation period closed on June 15. We are now taking in all of the very detailed, extensive feedback we've had from stakeholders. We will be using that feedback to modify the list. That is why the consultation period is so essential. It is a period that we use to hear directly from affected stakeholders and to get the best possible list for Canadians.
Like you, I have heard from people in the boating sector, and that is feedback that we are taking very seriously.
I know it's clear to you, but I do want to reiterate so that it's clear to Canadians. What we published on May 31 was a preliminary set of lists. The consultation period is real and meaningful. It has been important for us to hear from Canadians about what they want to see on the lists and what they don't want to see on the lists. Steve and the team and I and our colleagues in the Department of Finance are now working very hard to integrate that feedback from stakeholders and to modify the lists accordingly.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Canada began our conversation with the United States about section 232 on steel and aluminum as soon as this issue was raised in the United States. It was an issue that was raised by Secretary Ross. It was a Department of Commerce investigation. I had many conversations with him, beginning as soon as this investigation was launched last spring.
The Prime Minister discussed this directly—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
No, I haven't finished my answer.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I haven't finished my answer, though, if I may.
The Prime Minister discussed this directly with the President of the United States. I was present at that discussion at the G7 summit in Taormina, Italy. That was in June 2017.
I want to be very clear. There were many subsequent conversations.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I want to be clear with Canadians that this issue has been raised by our government at the highest levels. It was also an issue that I raised with Secretary Tillerson and with Ambassador Lighthizer, and it was raised by many other ministers and MPs—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I can't talk about safeguards?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay. I'll do that with somebody else.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Ms. Lapointe, thank you for your question, and for your hard work.
As I said in my comments, we work closely with all of the provinces, including Quebec of course. Mr. Verheul and his team speak directly with Quebec government officials. For my part, I had many discussions with ministers St-Pierre and Anglade, and even spoke directly with Premier Couillard.
The Province of Quebec has very effective representation in the United States. It is a pleasure to work with that province, and it's very important to do so. We also worked with Quebec unions and businesses such as forestry companies, and enterprises in the aerospace and aluminum sectors.
As you know very well, there are very strong economic ties between Quebec and the United States. It was very helpful for the federal government to work with all of the provinces, including Quebec.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
That is a very good question. I see that Mr. Verheul is very happy that you asked it.
The team of negotiators and I consider that these chapters are about modernization. As you said quite rightly, these chapters are not as interesting as others to journalists, but they are very important to Canadians who do business with the United States. Before the negotiations began, we consulted enterprises and workers. To them, the most important issues are trade-related. We have made progress on these issues. That is one of the reasons why I am finally optimistic with regard to the NAFTA negotiations.
It is worth pointing out that NAFTA is a good agreement, but it has been in effect for close to 25 years. We are taking advantage of this precious opportunity to modernize it and adapt it to the 21st century. There is good co-operation among the three countries' negotiators on the modernization chapters.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Fine.
To date, negotiators have concluded discussions on nine chapters: technical and commercial barriers; North American competitiveness; good regulatory practices; sanitary and phytosanitary measures; publications and administration; small and medium businesses; the fight against corruption; telecommunications; and competition policies.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Again let me thank you for the work we did together on the unanimous consent motion. Thank you for taking such a leading role there.
I agree with you that it is very important for our steel and aluminum workers to know that they have the full support not only of parliamentarians, which I know they have, but also of the Government of Canada.
I, in consultation with my colleagues Navdeep Bains and Bill Morneau, am currently working on ways to support those workers and those industries. I would like to say to this committee and to all Canadians that we absolutely believe those workers, those industries, need our support. I want to point out that the imposition of the retaliatory tariffs is one part of that support. When Canadian workers and Canadian companies now face tariffs selling their steel and aluminum to the United States, it is not fair that their U.S. competitors would not face parallel tariffs selling it to Canada. They will.
The actions that we're taking at the WTO and NAFTA are an important part of the defence. I agree that we need to work on ways to directly support workers and industry, and that work is under way. I would be very interested in ideas you have on the best way to do that.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay. It's another really good question.
Just at the end, you said you hoped that anything that we're doing on the steel and aluminium industry includes talking to workers, talking to unions. I agree that this is absolutely necessary. That is something we are doing, and I'm committed to continuing to do it.
When it comes to the car sector and the investigation that the U.S. Commerce Department has begun on section 232 tariffs on autos, this is frankly even more absurd than the notion that Canadian steel and aluminum would pose a national security threat. I have raised the issue with Secretaries Ross and Pompeo, and also with Ambassador Lighthizer. We have made clear the Canadian view, and the Prime Minister has raised the issue directly with the President.
We believe, as has been our motto since the beginning of the NAFTA negotiations, that we need to hope for the best and work for the best possible outcome, but always be prepared for every eventuality. As you heard in the House of Commons yesterday from my colleague Navdeep Bains, that very much includes a comprehensive strategy of working with and supporting our automotive sector. I would also point out that just as we have worked closely with our allies in a response to section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, this is an issue that we are also discussing with our allies, including the European Union, Japan, and Mexico.
In terms of support for industries under the impact of tariffs, it is worth thinking for a moment about our forestry sector, another sector that has been affected by U.S. tariffs. The Government of Canada, I think with support of all parliamentarians, has stepped up to support those industries.
I'd like to point out, as I have—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
—in the United States, that the price of the tariffs have been passed on to U.S. consumers. That's an important point to make.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for the question, Sukh, and thank you for your hard work on trade in general and also on this issue, which I know is extremely relevant for your own constituents and for your own riding. I think it is really important for Canadian steel and aluminium workers to see their MPs stepping up and playing such a strong role.
When it comes to the lists and the consultation, the first point that bears emphasis is that work on these lists was going on very intensively far ahead of May 31, and I would like again to thank Steve Verheul and his team and the Department of Finance. The fact that we were able to come out immediately on May 31 is due to preparation done by very many people. I think it was a strong action on the part of Canada, and I'm glad we were in a position to do it.
The consultation period has also been very valuable and important, and I'd like to thank all Canadians who've provided feedback. It is led by the Department of Finance, which is directly responsible for this particular area. We've received a total of 1,108 submissions. We've received them from industry associations, from large corporations, from small and medium-sized enterprises, from provinces, from private citizens, and from workers.
We are currently hard at work looking at the lists, talking to people who made submissions, and working on refining the final lists. I think it is really important for us to get those lists right, and that is what we are committed to doing. I've heard from members of this committee directly, but I welcome continuing feedback from members of the committee, from all MPs, and from all Canadian stakeholders. The formal consultation period came to an end on June 15, but we are ready to continue hearing from people. It is really important for us to get this right, and that's what we're committed to doing.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Canada is a trading nation. We believe in trade, and we know that trade is a win-win relationship and that both partners benefit when trade happens. When we talk about the section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, we make the point about the national security justification being both illegal and absurd, because those are the grounds on which these tariffs are being levied, and it's really important to remind people that facts matter. The law matters. That is why that is where we start.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Again, I think it's important for us to be clear that when it comes to the section 232 investigation of cars, these are early days. We are at the beginning of the process. While we need to be prepared for every eventuality, it's important for us also to realize that we are in a process.
That said, the investigation as currently framed is on light vehicles, so that's cars and trucks, and it does concern all parts that are in a vehicle.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for that question.
Since you mention your own history with NAFTA, Tracey knows what I'm about to say, which is that my own personal history with NAFTA began when my mother unsuccessfully ran as the NDP candidate in Edmonton Strathcona. I'm afraid that the NDP back in the day was very anti-NAFTA, so I did knock on doors in Edmonton Strathcona in talking about that issue.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
She lost, though.
I think it is worth it for us as Canadians to reflect on that history. In the nearly 25 subsequent years, I think our country has really moved from quite a polarized view around trade, including trade with the United States, to a really unified Team Canada approach.
One of the things that is striking for me is the extent to which Canadians broadly understand the value of trade in general for our country. It doesn't mean we don't have disagreements about specific trade agreements or differing views about what should or should not be in trade agreements, but I think we have a broad appreciation that Canada is a trading nation and that trade is absolutely essential for the prosperity of middle-class Canadians and of everyone who is working hard to join the middle class. I think that is a very good thing. It's a strength for our country.
In these specific negotiations, I think there has been an appreciation from the very outset that on this issue, Canadians were all on the same side, Canada's side. I think we all appreciated that the best outcome for our country would come from all working together. I'm pleased to say that we have been successfully doing this.
We've been doing that partly through the role that members of Parliament have been playing, including this committee. If you don't mind my mentioning another committee, I think the foreign affairs committee has been playing a really strong role as well, as has the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group. The fact that we have had bipartisan groups of MPs going and talking to their U.S. partners has been extremely helpful.
I think something that has also been very valuable is that all of us—all legislators, the government, certainly our public servants—have been spending a lot of time talking to Canadians about their concerns on these issues. This broad consultative approach, I think, has helped to strongly inform our negotiating positions. We come to the table knowing what Canadians directly affected by a particular issue really need. It has also helped to build a really strong, unified national approach.
Steve and I have been in many conversations where this has been the case. Consulting with Canadians helps us to understand our counterparts in the U.S. and Mexico better. When we talk to the Canadians who are part of a trading relationship with the United States, they have clients and customers on the other side of the border—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for your hard work on behalf of your constituents.
The auto sector is absolutely essential to our country and to this government. It has been an absolute focus of our discussions with the U.S. about the Canada-U.S. economic relationship.
As I think this committee is well aware, the rules of origin in the automotive sector have been at the heart of our NAFTA negotiations. We have spent a great deal of time at the table with our American and Mexican counterparts and we have also consulted very closely with the car parts companies, the car companies, and the unions. We absolutely understand the centrality of the automotive sector to our economy, to our relationship with the U.S., and to NAFTA. We have been and continue to be extremely focused on it when it comes to the NAFTA negotiations.
On the section 232 investigation, let me be very clear. Canada knows, and our partners around the world in Europe, in Asia, in Mexico know this would be an unprecedented act by the United States, and we have been very clear in explaining that to our American counterparts—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's important for us also to be in very close conversation with Canadian and U.S. business about what the impact of such an action would be—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
With respect, let me say that the Prime Minister's response and my own on May 31, when the section 232 tariffs by the United States were announced, was firm, clear, and resolute, and it spoke to detailed preparation. Our preparations in support of the auto sector are equally detailed, and our support will be equally firm and clear, and that's a commitment.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Speak for yourself, man.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question, Peter. I will try. I find that I'm able to get into very boring technical details quite quickly when it comes to NAFTA, but I'll try.
It is absolutely the case that when we look at the U.S. negotiating positions on NAFTA, there is a set of issues that we discussed earlier in response to Linda's question, which we describe as the modernization agenda. On those chapters, we're making good progress. We have closed nine of those chapters, and I think those chapters are areas in which we are really going to be able to bring NAFTA up to date to the 21st century and make a real difference to Canadians who are part of the $2.5 billion of business we do with the United States every day.
There is also a set of U.S. negotiating positions that the officials who write me notes about them describe as the “unconventional” U.S. positions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce uses slightly stronger language and describes them as some of the “poison pill” proposals.
One of these is the proposal for a sunset clause. The idea would be that every five years, unless each country chose to opt back into NAFTA, the treaty would cease to exist. Canada is strongly opposed to that for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, we see the value in a trading agreement being that it allows businesses and workers to build permanent relationships to plan for the long term. An agreement that expires every five years has much less value.
We also make a practical point, which is, as Canadians know very well, that NAFTA already has a six-month notice clause that permits parties to exit. I will be celebrating my 20th wedding anniversary this summer, so I use marriage analogies: there is already one way for us to get divorced, and we don't think another one is necessary.
Now, I do want to be clear that when it comes to this U.S. insistence upon a sunset clause, that is very much on the table. It has not been withdrawn by the United States and it is a major sticking point for Canada. I know we have the support of Canadians in that position.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I think that's a really good question. I do want to just start by addressing your initial comment.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll be super-quick, Randy. I just want to say I have had the same experience in hearing from our American counterparties.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay. Look, it is absolutely the case, as I said in response to Tracey and to Colin, that our steel and aluminum workers and industries need our support, and just as we have supported the forestry sector, we are working on a plan to support them. I agree with you also, Randy—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm not going to reveal the details today, but we are consulting carefully on the list, and what is actually on the list will have an impact. We are consulting on what kind of support the industry and workers will need.
I also want to point out that the overall economic situation is relevant. Just as we saw a price response with softwood lumber tariffs, it's going to be important to look at what the broader economic situation is in response to these U.S. measures and in response to the responsive actions taken by Canada, the EU, and Mexico. I want to be clear that the government is very seized of the issue. We believe our workers and industry need to be supported, and we will support them. That also includes the car sector.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Bob. I was a bit worried with all of the toing and froing with the votes, but I think we have found ourselves a one-hour window here, and that's good.
I am supported here by my outstanding colleagues from the Department of Global Affairs.
We have David Morrison, who is the associate deputy minister. I want to particularly thank David for the terrific work he's done on Venezuela. He was really leading the charge there, and he was with me in Washington on Monday. Thank you very much, David.
I think everybody knows Steve Verheul, who is our chief NAFTA negotiator and is broadly responsible for trade and trade policy.
Since we are here to talk about estimates, we have with us our finance whiz, Arun. I think Arun is going to be available later on, if there is a later on, to answer further questions.
I wanted to start, as Bob said, by making a few opening remarks.
Mr. Chair, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, thank you for inviting me to speak to you today about the way in which our government is delivering on its foreign affairs priorities.
I would really like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee for your hard work. I have been travelling a great deal in recent months and have not seen you as often as I would like. This committee has played a huge role in travelling to parts of the world that are increasingly important for Canada. I would specifically like to thank and single out the committee for the work on the Magnitsky legislation. I have supported that work all along, but I think the international developments we have seen have shown how valuable it is to have that tool.
Our government is taking full advantage of Canada's long tradition of being present on the world stage, in order to speak with a loud voice against intolerance and nativism, while addressing the legitimate concerns of those who feel left behind by globalization. It means that we have to demonstrate constructive leadership within the international order we have established with our partners in order to promote peace, security and prosperity in the four corners of the earth.
That is exactly what our government is doing. First, I want to talk to you about our concerns about the persecution of the Rohingya populations in Rakhine State, and the forced migration of the Rohingya into Bangladesh. Canada's position is clear: no group, no people, no community should be victims of persecution or discrimination because of their identity or their religion. Canada will not sit idly by while peoples are deprived of their most basic rights because of their membership in an ethnic group. We have a moral obligation to act. That is why, on May 23, Canada announced its strategy in response to the crisis affecting the Rohingya in Myanmar and in Bangladesh.
In order to begin new initiatives and to strengthen existing ones, Canada will be providing $300 million over three years in international assistance to meet the needs for humanitarian and development assistance, and for peace, stabilization and accountability. Canada's strengthened and integrated involvement is based on specific recommendations provided in the report by special envoy Bob Rae, to whom we owe our thanks. Mr. Rae did some excellent work in this critically important matter that marks Canada's increased contribution to the international response to the crisis.
Honourable committee members must also be aware that I went to Bangladesh at the beginning of May. I spoke at the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Canada will continue to work closely with the international community and the United Nations in order to set the course for the future. We are assuming our share of the global responsibility to intervene in this crisis and to respond to the needs of the displaced and most vulnerable people.
This week, in fact on Monday, I was at the Organization of American States general assembly with David where Venezuela was a central topic. The countries in our hemisphere were clear in their overwhelming concern about the crisis. As I said directly to the Venezuelan foreign minister on Monday, the people of Venezuela have Canada's unwavering support in the face of ongoing oppression by the Maduro regime. In response to the recent illegitimate presidential election, we have downgraded our diplomatic relations with Venezuela and sanctioned a further 14 regime officials, our third round of sanctions. Canadians are committed to standing up for the human rights of Venezuelans and for democracy in Venezuela, and our government will continue to do so.
Canada also stands with the people of Ukraine. We continue to condemn Russia's illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea and its ongoing support for the war in eastern Ukraine. In April, I was very pleased to welcome foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin to the G7 foreign ministers meeting in Toronto and to my home. All G7 countries were clear and firm in their support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.
In my last appearance before this committee, I announced the Government of Canada's support for amendments to further strengthen Bill C-47 and Canada's arms export controls. I want to thank the committee for its diligence and hard work on this important legislation. Importantly, the amendments that we will be voting on would require the government to consider the Arms Trade Treaty criteria when assessing the granting of export permits. They would also permit the Minister of Foreign Affairs to deny a permit when there is substantial risk that the export of the goods would result in the negative consequences of these criteria. These changes would mean that Global Affairs Canada would need to ensure, before authorizing the export of arms, a high level of confidence that the arms will not be used to commit human rights abuses.
As I also mentioned to this committee in February, Canada will hold itself in the future to a higher standard on the export of arms to reflect the expectations of Canadians that such exports are not used in the serious violation of human rights. Our reputation as a country with clear and cherished democratic values that stand up for human rights is strong. We must continue to be a global leader and to work to protect these values and rights.
I also want to speak briefly about the unprecedented trade action taken by the United States last week. This is not a typical trade dispute. This is the United States using national security considerations as a pretext to impose tariffs not only on Canada, but on all of its closest allies, the members of NATO and Mexico. These tariffs have been imposed on NATO allies of the United States, including Canada, using the absurd argument that somehow the steel and aluminum that we produce poses a national security threat to the United States. This is not only ridiculous, it is also illegal under international trade law.
I was in Washington over the past two days, and while there, I spoke with senior Republican legislators who have been publicly critical of this action by the U.S. administration. Canada's response has been measured, carefully calibrated, and perfectly reciprocal. Last Thursday we announced that we will be imposing tariffs on a list of U.S. imports worth $16.6 billion. This is Canada's strongest trade action since the Second World War.
Alongside these tariffs, Canada has initiated a case at the WTO, and we have raised a case under chapter 20 of NAFTA. As supporters of the rules-based international order, including in trade, it was very important for us to take this legal action. In taking and in crafting our responsive measures, we have been working in very close coordination with our allies in the European Union and in Mexico. We will continue to coordinate closely with them.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the countless Canadians of all political stripes who have come out in support of our strong plan to defend Canadian workers. This really is a matter of national interest and not partisan politics, as I have heard from very many Canadians who have written in directly to me, some of them, I am afraid, beginning their emails by saying they do not vote for the Liberal Party. In particular, I was pleased to see Jason Kenney, Brad Wall, Rona Ambrose, James Moore, the Canadian Labour Congress, United Steelworkers, and Unifor voice their support for the strong Canadian response.
The Prime Minister and I were also glad to speak to Canada's premiers on Monday. I'm grateful for their support. I was able to brief Premier Moe of Saskatchewan personally ahead of his trip to Washington, where he is even as we speak. I would like to thank him for being there and advocating for Canada.
On a final note, Mr. Chair, let me conclude with a few words about one of Canada's signature priorities, which you may have heard of, that is happening this week. That is our G7 presidency and the leaders summit. This week and this year is a real opportunity for our country to speak with a strong voice on the international stage.
Canada will call on our counterparts in addressing the global issues that demand urgent attention. This specifically means investing in economic growth, which benefits everyone, to get ready for the jobs of the future, to work together on climate change, the oceans and clean energy, and to build a more peaceful and safe world. Above all, we will promote gender equality and enhance the power of women.
I will close by stating that, in the G7 and in the international community, Canada will continue to come to the defence of a rules-based international order and to find ways to strengthen it. We do so each time we have the opportunity, and we pay specific attention to the link between peace, common prosperity, open trade, and human rights.
Thank you very much, Bob. Thank you very much, colleagues. I am happy to take your questions now.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for your engagement with our steel and aluminum workers. Really, I think that extends to the whole committee and all parties around this table. It's very important for our workers and our industries to feel the strong support of the government and of all Canadians.
Part of your question spoke to readiness and preparation. I want to assure all Canadians very much, including the industry, that Canada was absolutely ready for this action. This is not a U.S. action that we desired. We think it is a very grave mistake, but we were absolutely prepared, and that preparation is manifest in the extensiveness of the list that we published on Thursday.
In terms of the timing, a few considerations played a part in that timing. One is, as I mentioned, a strong view that we are strongest when we work together. The European Union's actions will take effect on July 1, as will ours, and we think international coordination is very useful in this matter.
You referred also to the value of consultations. We share that view. A public consultation period is particularly valuable in terms of giving all of our stakeholders in Canada an opportunity to be in touch with us about the list. Let me say, as a bit of a footnote here, I've heard from a lot of MPs directly about concerns in their constituencies, and I'd like to encourage everyone to send me an email personally. I'll be very happy to receive it.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Having that public period is useful. It's also useful because publishing the list gives the affected American companies and stakeholders and workers an opportunity to see it and to respond.
You're quite right also in the thought behind the question that surely there was an opportunity to consult with stakeholders beforehand. There was, and very many extensive conversations were held, particularly with the steel and aluminum industry prior to Thursday—and I want to thank Steve and his team for leading that. Having said that, public consultation and the publishing of the list has a very different impact, and it's valuable to have that consultation period.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question.
Let me start by sharing the view that you've just expressed, that the threats that were recently expressed by the supreme leader Khamenei are absolutely abhorrent. We are appalled by them in Canada, and I am appalled by them personally. We're very public in our denunciation of those remarks. We need to be very clear that Canada is a steadfast friend of Israel, and we absolutely support Israel's right to live in peace.
I also want to say, with respect to Iran—and this is a matter of great personal importance to me—that at this moment, any contact that Canada has with Iran has to be focused on the terrible plight of Maryam Mombeini. She is a widow. She is a Canadian citizen. Her sons are in Canada. She has not only had to live through the terrible and tragic death of her husband, but she is now barred from leaving Iran. I have spoken with Mrs. Mombeini on several occasions. I've told her of Canada's strong support. Last week I also spoke directly with Iran's foreign minister and I was very clear with him that the priority in Canada's conversations with Iran is that Maryam Mombeini must be able to return home.
Results: 401 - 500 of 851 | Page: 5 of 9

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data