Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2009

[Elaine Feldman]

It connects at all levels, from the deputy down to the officer in charge of a particular issue.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We're in a very critical moment now. The next several months we're going to either hang on to a bunch of jobs or lose a bunch of jobs. It's a really tough time, and it requires a very different kind of strategy to hang in there.

I'm asking whether you feel confident that you're on the kind of footing you need to make the case to the corporate world that this is where the jobs should stay, we produce more competitively than anybody else, and this is why this company should be locating here and not somewhere else.

[Elaine Feldman]

That's a major part of our day-to-day work. As I said, I think it's quite clear to our network across the United States that the economy is the number one preoccupation. That's the information we're looking for and that we're receiving from them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have a couple more minutes, if you want.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We had a very interesting presentation from Frank Graves. He was making the point that it's going to take something big to get the American's attention and that we should be looking at a broader engagement with the Congress and the administration, as well as with American public opinion. He wasn't persuaded that we have the means to do that, that we aren't sufficiently aware of what is moving American opinion and how American opinion needs to be engaged.

Has anybody seen his presentation or heard his comments, and would you have anything to say about that?

[Elaine Feldman]

We haven't seen it, so I would be interested. As I said, we have been focused for months now on engaging with the new administration and Congress. If there are people who think we're not doing a good job, they should talk to us about where we're falling down. It is our number one priority.

I'll refer again to our network. Not only are we engaging with Congress and the administration, but we engage at the local level. That's why we have so many offices across the United States: to influence state and municipal governments to make sure they carry that message to Washington.

We have found that it is often more effective for the message to come from an American than a Canadian. If you have a chance to make your pitch at the local level and that message is then carried back to Washington, that has more influence at times than a representation from the Government of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Feldman.

We'll move to Madame Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our committee.

Ms. Feldman, in your remarks, you said: “In order to protect and expand our commerce, there is no question that the Canada—U.S. border remains a policy priority for Canada...“

A little earlier, we had Mr. Hampson here and he referred to the problems associated with the border between Canada and the United States. He felt that we should loosen the rules that have been tightened since the events of September 2001 and harmonize them, including those dealing with the automobile industry.

Do you agree with him?

[Elaine Feldman]

I did not hear Mr. Hampson's remarks. So it is a little difficult to say whether I agree or not. But I can tell you that the border is one of the issues that the federal government is very concerned about. We think that there has to be a balance between questions of security and questions of trade, as the Prime Minister said during Mr. Obama's visit.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Hampson referred to the European model, which could, among other things, make trade easier between Canada and the United States. Have you anything to add to that? I wanted to tell you what he said about it.

On a different matter, Canada's position on international relations has been perfectly in line with the United States' position since January 2006. Since President Obama's election, can we see any changes in Canada's position vis-à-vis American government policies?

The President is very popular. In his stimulus plan, he favours “buy American“. Should Canada be worried about that? Do we have possible irritants to look forward to, such as we had during the softwood lumber crisis?

[Elaine Feldman]

On a number of occasions, the President has said that he is against protectionism and that the “buy American“ program was going to comply with the standards of international law. It is something that we must look closely at. So far, the President has been clear: he is against protectionism in the United States.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, thank you, Madam Deschamps.

We'll move to Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe I'm sharing my time with Mr. Lunney.

Thank you very much for that. I think we have some really valuable information here.

Ms. Feldman, you've already talked about how Mr. Obama has tried to mitigate the concerns about protectionism. Are there other things in the U.S. stimulus package that Canadians should be concerned about? I guess my second question, if we can kind of wrap that in because of time, is whether there is a need for Canada to be working on a North American stimulus package with the United States. We see that in our auto industry. We have cooperation between the American government, the Canadian federal government, and the Ontario government, so it's kind of a prototype. Are there other areas in which we should be looking at working together in order to get this economy back on track?

[Elaine Feldman]

With regard to your first question about whether there are any other concerns, we're watching the implementation of the stimulus package very closely to ensure that should there be any concerns, we get a chance to address them head-on. This is something we're following very closely, because the devil will be in the details of implementation.

With regard to your second point on working together, I think it was quite clear, coming out of the visit of the President, that there is an opportunity for Canada and the United States to work together on a number of economic proposals, for example, whether there's some money that can be spent on border infrastructure coming out of both the U.S. and Canadian stimulus packages that would be valuable for both Canada and the United States. I think there's a clear recognition that we are an integrated economy and need to work together to ensure that what we're doing is complementary, and as you say, not just in the auto sector.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Lunney, please.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to pick up on your comments about management at the border and smart and efficient border management.

I'm referring back to Mr. Graves' presentation earlier. That would be Frank Graves from EKOS Research Associates, the polling firm. He presented some polling data about cooperation and American and Canadian perceptions of international issues. On the same level, three of the eight major concerns raised by the American population involved borders: managing our shared border, national security, and, immigration.

Post 9/11 there was, and still is, a perception that some of the attackers came from across the Canadian border. Even though that turned out not to be true, there still seems to be a perception in the United States across quite a broad section of the U.S. that our border is somewhat porous.

Now, looking at immigration practices in Canada, we don't actually detain anybody who comes in. They get on the plane and they have to have papers, but if they show up at our borders and they don't have papers, we don't detain them. We investigate them, but usually they're released the same day into Canadian society.

My question would be, and this might be a little outside your realm perhaps, but given this perception within the U.S., would you suggest that our immigration practices are a concern and should be reviewed in light of addressing these concerns?

[Elaine Feldman]

Well, as you said, immigration is outside the realm of what I'm responsible for.

In terms of perception, I think the Prime Minister made it very clear in his press conference that threats to the United States are threats to Canada. So if anybody has any perceptions that somehow there's a difference vis-à-vis security concerns in Canada and the United States, I would hope that the remarks of the Prime Minister would clear those up.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I appreciate that, but it was a very good political answer.

My concern would be more of a practical nature, that we actually have people showing up who must have papers to get on the plane but don't have them and are showing up and are not being detained. Having made the point, I'll let it go at that and move in another direction, because I recognize it's not your primary responsibility.

I wanted to ask about our relationship with NATO. I was just over in the U.K. recently, and reading some of the local coverage over there, I see that both the U.K. and the U.S. have some concerns about our involvement in Afghanistan.

My question is really about Afghanistan and our future cooperation with the U.S. in relation to Afghanistan. In terms of our NATO partners, I see that NATO agreed at its recent meetings to ramp up aid and support for Afghanistan, but there were actually no commitments made involving combat or any military involvement.

Again, it's a bit of a stretch of your primary responsibilities, but how are Canada and the U.S. going to deal with the fact that there are three countries, the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., carrying the military responsibility for NATO? Our NATO partners seem to be willing to talk and to offer up a little money, but they don't seem to want to share the heavy lifting.

[Elaine Feldman]

Again, it's an area that's a bit outside of my responsibilities. But I can say, because this has been said publicly by a number of Canadian ministers, that they believe there is, as you say, a need for other NATO partners to step up to the plate. There will be a NATO summit in early April, and I am quite sure that this subject will be on the agenda for the leaders at that NATO summit.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I guess, just for the record, I'll leave it with the comment that this was covered in the media over in the U.K. as well. There's certainly a concern or perception in the U.K. media that “we” are carrying the burden. I suppose that if we don't address this, we'll have to be looking at NATO redefining itself as something other than a military alliance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

We'll continue with Mr. Dewar, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and our guests for being here today.

I wanted to start with a couple of questions about the numbers we use when we define trade between Canada and the U.S. One number that has been thrown around is $1.5 billion. I think you referenced the fact that $1 million in goods and services cross the border every minute.

What is the percentage we use these days for trade between Canada and the U.S?

[Elaine Feldman]

The percentage of Canadian trade—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

With the U.S., sorry.

[Elaine Feldman]

It's 74%, approximately.