tv NAFTA Negotiations and Private Industry Interests CSPAN October 13, 2017 6:28pm-7:28pm EDT
because the car companies are owned by who? you. the american in the room. absolutely. but the majority of shareholders are american. this is the issue we're watching very closely. >> they do very much. we appreciate the answers from the panelists and all the questions and obviously there is a lot of interest as the day goes on.
have a good rest of the day. [applause] >> now we will have the industry's perspective so now i am pleased to introduce my partner as a member of the commonwealth and regulatory practice here with the international trade practice and a good guy to have a beer with. which all of you have a chance to experience it is stick around for the cocktail reception later. >> that is the nicest introduction of ever gotten. [laughter] and the last time so pretty
excited. so to have incredible information going back to you the '80s this is where the rubber meets and then to introduce the catalyst that will talk to you per korea as a vice president of policy for the business council of canada with a distinguished career in public and private sector and chief of staff to the minister of of international trade adviser to deprive mr. 2009 through 2014 when canada was engaged with the europe free trade agreement and the ppp negotiations.
as the canadian federation of agriculture and what i find interesting those our international trade which i found fascinating coming from a u.s. perspective. they will only see international trade. and the director of institutional affairs with the conglomerate headquartered so everything from electrical cables and power transformers. and the coordinator from the private sector advisory and we will talk a little bit about that process. i of a big fan of national public radio.
soda to a candidate seem to hate nafta to get the impression that they don't worry that one of them hate similar then the other. so what are they talking about? anyone want to guess what year?. >> 2008 barack obama and hillary clinton. anyone who followed the election and campaign in 2016 and as full well above rhetoric that trump was announcing and talky multiple times of nafta being out worst trade deal ever if you boil down those parties with the lack of reciprocity those of a the u.s. priorities framing
those negotiations. i would first like to see what do the stakeholder see of their priorities?. >> thanks for including me into the panel. it became quite clear that nafta would be renegotiated we embarked with the membership which includes 116 countries across canada representing every sector and region across the country we had common messages and as i have had conversation with my counterparts the business perspective is very similar those originally we referred
to it as do no harm but we should probably stop saying that because it undermines the message that others try to send to with the administration or how you feel about nafta have. said don't rollback or undermined and the lead we have done to make the region in competitive. don't undermine the process. the segment which is modernizing its then it is old and out of date then the kennedy one is prehistoric and digital trade there is a whole host of chapters to reference love was
negotiated. but in particular to specific areas of modernization, the list of eligible professionals and then the other is the customs process. it is ridiculous we're still doing things on paper and that third area is go farther end to regulatory cooperation to reduce cost and to get around those provisions in the united states to have skin in the game. i vertu areas to send a message to the canadian
government as you can imagine and the other area was states resolution and on chapter 19 my friends at the embassy saying why are you so worried about chapter 19? and from our perspective we are concerned with the agenda on chapter 19. and that needs to have better retention. >> with that border to have that manufacturing sector.
about the need for training that was behind the job loss with a discussion during the election but it wasn't. >> we have seen exponential growth and to have about 56 billion and did is approaching mexico. and what we did as an organization once it became clearer to become discussed with the american in farm bureau and restart the
discussion and we got to the point where it's not los this back. with tremendous growth that is taking place. i have the opportunity to travel to a number of u.s. states with the farm organizations with the president announced he would go to nafta. so-called in the white house to get this call back. but now i what exports 60 percent of the corn that they go to mexico.
sova it is not just primary agriculture. said that with the process. sadr there is that interdependence. sir one of the steps to talk about the modernization of the argument to harmonize regulations? to see if we can remove a the barriers and even something in the beef industry to inspect a the plant were believe we inspected so actually went
as far too whole day press conference here in washington. and all three countries and building on that process made. with steven harper presentation of supply management was a discussion issue if there is trade allowed back and forth and what is coming in and what is going now. canada is the number two market and they don't think that is recognized that that
harmonization dealing with those transportation initiatives and as far as those hot-button issues getting into a fight over supply management we have to watch that we don't derails the progress made by some of those minor issues. there has been a huge success story one of the other things is sent only agriculture but industry. how do we relate to the common voter to cause those job losses? what the benefits have been? because they seem disconnected how they are providing long-term jobs in that bill be the message to push forward.
>> before or the republican nomination campaign, it concerns were about global capacity or of the impact it was having. sold nafta and the focus on mexico well as a general concern on the business community with the supply chains and service providers and with job losses as a surrogate because nafta had a bad reputation in the united states. but i am curious from the mexican perspective how you see the priorities for mexico and how the business
community is working through read negotiations?. >>. >> thanks to be here to share this panel. and then my colleagues here from mexico. and wed each of those parties have felt about it. if i were to tell you before the nafta negotiations i was able to be a part of it. so i am proud that i found that. sova o the successful
renegotiation. sold getting to gather to organize but that since it i may use the word on the opposite side of the table and hearing the arguments to keep mexico close to the world. and to be successful. and the whole system in which we were advised of that that time that the need for our mexico was to embark on the free trade agreement and not precisely in the of long-term to become a good thing for mexico.
but the way we try to support to back up some of those proposals. twenty-six years later all the mexican private sector is behind at least the amount of trade to be losers and winners that was immediately after nafta was signed. then we would have nothing for a half-dozen to a comeback strong and fast as we did at that time. so now we have a private sector so that these keep
regular doing and for that we are here to support you that% years was to put because sometimes we do go out there to show each and every body because the guy in a nebraska uh or wyoming was getting a check that with relieve written to move mexico we found out the 55 indiana of the is pistons of the cars going to mexico so check where we are sending we have 98 percent.
so that is to we should blame the government and the private sector of the stakeholders. said girl for attached when we found out candidate trump was getting ahead in the polls the reorganized and a bit above is baptized by a rare secretary. but the original agreement with the idea that the pylon in mexico as well as deifies three committee.
to restructure for those that i have to coordinate and to move period best the business council to have the intelligence committee working with numbers with that consideration that frame of reference. and as the economist said that you have to consider services closed a border trading and i am sure who
>> on the issues of coordination and transparency. as they have not been as forthcoming with the advisory committee ending the stakeholder as what canada has done earlier this morning and i am curious if that approach to do that is generally and specifically and it is entirely different. >> serve to follow a fairly
similar model. and to lou brock organize a private sector with the mexican negotiators. both on the sector basis with a broad economic basis but i do admirer your system >> jest on the consultation before the talks on the agriculture side with those commit -- sarah sablotny the issues should be a k going forward and that is the
basket of goods to be dealt with we have developed a good relationship with the negotiators over the years. the chief negotiators started it agriculture and very good to get feedback from the stakeholder groups beguin there is all the bad engagement and this initiative global affairs canada having a group meeting when those meetings were taking place and tooting gauge those stakeholders' coming forward that i would say that there is a lot of frustration right now to get concrete
was 1992 he over what the investors want clean air rules what the types of long-term investment with significant job creation. that requires real analysis to have those rules with the bolted flexibility seibald how this point the largest agreement between the largest trading partners in the world and the u.s. has talked about that mechanism every five years to talk about the of poison-pill but that seems to be one approach. have you had any thinking or heard from the business community how to strike that balance providing
flexibility?. >> you mention in will whole idea of the sun said agreement -- sunset agreement diphenyl the idea that they will drop dead in five years but to negotiate a deal for sure. the idea of the examination if there are technical issues were something has changed to incorporate that is good but let you mentioned in the previous panel are the changes to of nafta us since it was put in place. but the sunset clause i don't know how you do
long-term planning. to plan to buy the equipment to supply the market that may not be there in five years?. >> what they have done is the institutional framework. selfie we need to remember that to you change the domestic law in some cases so i cannot give certainty to investors bet in the car manufacturing you don't buy
three. >> all three have creative art, in many ways it nearing each other isaac canada or mexico that's angry about nafta. why is in it in the same level as the now the united states? the business interests and investors, et cetera, the people have lost jobs there's been a decline in manufacturing jobs, do you have a view as to why this is a u.s. phenomena and opposed to being canada or mexico?
>> i don't think if you ask a canadian business leader whether not they believe that nafta has harmed canada they would say yes. as was covered in previous panels, canadians have a generally positive view about free trade. they believe the free trade is to our benefit largely because they had bought into the idea that we don't have the people to sell what we make. so we have to treat. my concern is in the united states the issues that folks on the ground in communities that are hurting with nafta may have something to do with nafta. also come from very divisive opinions about mexico and concerns about other countries using mexico and canada as a vehicle to access the united states. the canada does not share the same view of nafta at all.
>> a couple of observations. some goes back to the previous panel were speaker gingrich talked about some ways that the number of people in the united states have been left behind. but there's a number of reasons why, could be the education system for retraining or other factors for the manufacturing jobs they have is no longer there are reasons, it might be robotics or whatever but no one stepped in to help with the retraining and allow them access to the jobs. i happen to be in geneva the week the election took place. but the ambassador of finland made an observation. he looked at the midwest states where the votes came in for trump that's where a lot of the jobs were lost.
you have middle-age men ottawa job, they didn't see hope her future and his observation is that in many countries when restructuring like that take place they for programs in place to help through. i was on an economic development committee when the city of elliott lake lost the uranian mind. high paid workers were there. federal governments kicked it up with retraining programs. we did stuff locally and business development and transportation to other areas of the country. within five years the community had restructured. you look at communities, the frustration in the united states those type of tools are put in place. so i think the trade agreements have been on fairly dragged into the broader issue of
underemployment by people looking for jobs that longer exist because the skill set they have is no longer needed. >> we can easily say that over nine or 10% ten times his foot trade grown in mexico. so it's difficult that you'll find somebody will say there some losers and winners and in general you can say much more winners have been better jobs. it's a good number of mexico that expert related jobs, they almost pay 50% more in general to the economy. even from your colleagues and friends and i remember from the agribusiness center that at that
time they had been the exchange claim that since three or four years they had been trained in making errors of how they turn it around and now they run it. but in general what i agree is that i think we have not use the mechanism that were there to do all this training in this report to the people who had needed to be reeducated or even in the agricultural sector to promote, which is been difficult mexico, to switch from the crops that would be more productive and we should leave the others to countries.
the first book that i'll read international -- so, it's going to be a good opportunity to reengineer and it will help also to use that money. there are certain programs in nafta and will areas and that's the things we need to go back and take over the dust and find out if that can be part of this renegotiation. >> switching to the potential and game one of the things that kept people in the tpp negotiations from tabling their offers was the uncertainty around fast-track in the system that we have in the united states for an up or down vote for final deal. people say right now the administration is negotiating
for the administration and not yet with the insider input completely of congress and counting the votes that would need to be there because of rewrite of nafta will require congressional passage. wonder how that place from your perspective in canada and mexico on the negotiations? and not just negotiating with u.s. but the accounting of what you need to get passage in congress. >> i think it's a huge issue. i think you see complications with respect getting it over finish line one day. congress coming out saying we don't agree with what the administration is putting forward at the table. 's already there say we don't a group of their offering. you're not certain that whatever the ambassador concludes with
that the president will accept, and then you're not sure that when it hits congress that they're not, say hold on, you didn't give me this provision to get our bow. i think that creates a difficult negotiating climate. no country will put the most difficult things on the table if the administration will come back and say were can extract another pound of flesh. other than preservation of the deal what is mexico or canada getting by this? you can have to give us concessions on all you most of other areas. a little baffling to canadian business that this is the situation developing.
>> you need reference to the transpacific partnership in canada a lot of people are disappointed with u.s. pulled out. i know they are were negotiated access rules develop. was negotiated and hardwired into the agreement. it brought certain dates agriculture particular just what the rules would be going forward with a large number of countries they gave us access to japan as a key market. there's a lot of disappointment about the fact that was turned down. you mentioned the dynamic of getting that approved through congress. we sit back and see we have a majority government and it goes through. there's no discussion. sometimes even a minority government can put something through because there's not the polarization around the issues.
we stand back and look and if it's a republican before the democrat can't vote in the vice versa. i think mr. gingrich said that if tpp had come the republicans would've voted against it because it was negotiated by obama. that's not something we will fix. us canadians interesting to watch that dynamic play out. what it does for the agriculture community is rely on developing partnerships with our american counterparts. this will only be changed by agriculture, going to their congressman insane this is not going to work for me. i don't think we should be canadians going in they think we should talk to her counterparts have the same values that we have and get the message out.
we need to change the channel on the discussion of the trade agreement were is not about being the worst deal ever comments about how to rebuild on something that has grown the economy of all three asians are less 20 some years. >> mexico in a matter we don't have a deal or a specific date, we have more or less a system that emulates that because we need to bring the end agreement signed into her senate and the senate has to ratify, again they cannot come back and say we need this to be changed in order to ratify. and if we go back to the tpp, seems like we have been evolving
very much the senate into the negotiations so that they can give their input, i remember i did myself remember we were about the same time the only benefit and i remember the senate coming in the same business that we have so in order that whenever we get to the point they can say that they that mexico will ratify the agreement and it becomes law under our constitution. the very delicate thing meaning it's above any other type of loss. now, what can happen with this we have to be careful because
again everybody so next and everybody wants to give the opinion. the other day the senator was talking about chapter 19, he did not have the slightest idea that he is say it was a no-no in a red flight there but without really knowing what is there and so is very difficult to give opinions. we have to be sure to convey the correct messages. we have always been told by government when they say that nothing is really negotiated until everything is negotiated. that's a little bit of how we have to see it at our senate the same way. >> a fun fact on chapter 19, u.s. exporters to mexico has
been more successful than any other user of chapter 19. >> and i would like to see you confront the mexico system and that they will come back and see it was good to push for that. >> we have one question here saying that the timing for new nafta seems to be aggressive in trying to cleate complete everyy december is not reasonable. how can the business community impact this now to avoid failure because of a december deadline. >> i think ron made a good point earlier u.s. politicians listen to their voters and taxpayers. we been working closely with their u.s. counterpart to help them craft message but i'm not
sure how much data is permeating folks minds these days but we been working with their u.s. counterparts time them with data. but the timeline is ambitious. but that was set by the president arbitrarily. this can take as little time as much as it needs to. i think at one point we have to look to see if the president thinks it's going to take too long and he'll withdraw. the uncertainty that's created is not good for any country that's part of nafta. >> when you mention uncertainty i looked at a number the meetings with tpp there is
always some general idea of where the negotiations were going. i think the uncertainty was trying to figure out where things are going to go. it adds an additional pressure on moving forward with negotiations and finding a way to address that will be critical as we go forward. the timelines are so tight that i think the negotiators from the session two weeks ago with the thanksgiving holiday in canada built into it gives very little time to respond. the other thing that's tied to the uncertainty is there still a number of proposals that have not been tabled it. we really don't know rather were
having a real proposal coming forward or just brodrick to see how it plays with the media. one thing we need to look at is how do we engage industry groups in canada and the united states to actively involve themselves in lobbying in the states and congressman to deal with the issue. in canada were fairly well organized but in this whole deal i don't think you'll see either candidate or mexico be the one to pull the plug they will definitely not sign a bad deal. >> i want to agree with that. we are supporting the government in terms that we want a good deal or no deal at all. in the sense that whatever is
contained there should be privileged and not just the timing. the timing is very important because as you said here and we have the whole campaigns for the presidential election starting around march of next year. it will be very good to have something clear by that time. secondly, the other thing is the private sector we see is that the government has been very precise in same plan a plan b. i don't know if you have to call it like that. we have to keep in mind that to be an option that if they terminator take longer it has been a good opportunity for private sector and government to
start working and what we can do besides that. was mentioned before we are engaged in not stopping in the organization of the agreement with european union. were in negotiations now to enhance the deals that we have with argentina and brazil under the system. besides that, i heard this morning that with expert and professional leaders that we should keep with canada in case it is something going wrong it will be good to keep the deal between us. i think all of that is plan b. were thinking about it. hopefully not needed because we end up in a successful
organization. >> we have time for couple more questions. >> to make it easier for seasonal agricultural producers to bring trade remedy cases. i'm wondering what the canadian perspective is on the proposal? >> specifically with respect to their proposal on the easier movement of seasonal workers is something that canada would likely support. we have a number of agreements we do with mexico and the caribbean countries right now. the temporary seasonal worker program which is worked well. think it's been a place for
almost 50 years. we negotiate with the governments of those countries to identify what has to be in the employment contract with a come over. it covers everything from housing and death benefits and medical benefits. there's a real confidence in those workers coming over. it's worked very well. particularly in the united states and canada the labor issue is becoming a limiting factor for expansion of agriculture. it's not just primary agriculture getting people to pick the crops, there's a number of those industries looking at how they can create more employment and were looking at immigration policies in canada to see if there's ways we can amend them. so anything that would enhance labor mobility will be positive.
>> i think the question was about seasonal adjustability and company cases? >> set weather talk about the regional ability? that's a short quick answer because i can see it would be a mess. you'd have every different region putting in a claim. there'd be no certainty. another president has seen a letter from a number of farm organizations say they don't support that going forward. it's a small regional issue that's been spun up as something that could be reported. >> we would all be in the fall there. >> i like to learn something
every day. one thing i've learned is still mexican say that it's better to have a bad deal than a good fight is now dead. that's great we won't use that anymore. thank you all very much. >> please join me in thinking this traffic panel. >> tomorrow, live coverage continues of the value voter summit from the white house chief strategist steve bannon, coverage begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> send it out on afterwords. life and political career of newt gingrich and the book citizen new. the making of a reagan conservative. he's interviewed by tom davis. >> this is before cable
television. cable news wasn't there at the time. >> howie: cnn and msnbc. just pockets of cable here and there. was mostly reruns. there's no talk radio to speak of. there's a big media since he spent he quickly realizes the potency of when he's given special orders in the afternoon because it being carried over cable to 100,000 homes across the country. dick army used to brittle him about it. and gingrich would say, would you go give a speech to hundred thousand people? and of course to it and that's what you're doing with c-span and special orders every afternoon. so quickly becomes a cult political leader and his getting
700 letters a week from people around the country. junior member from georgia a member of the minority party. >> watch afterward sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv. >> c-span's "washington journal", live every day with news and policy issues that impact too. coming up on saturday morning steven nelson discusses the values voters summit with speeches by president trump, steve bannon and judge rory moore. they talk about the current return of the hemp industry in kentucky.