Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States Committee on March 2nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Is that okay with everybody?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Which names did you say? It was Mr. Lewis, Ms. Romanado and who else?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

It was Mr. Housefather, I believe. I'd like to advocate for him as well. Then everybody would have had an opportunity to participate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Okay, so that's for five minutes each.

Are the witnesses okay with staying?

[Michael Grant]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Okay, so why don't we go to Mr. Lewis for five minutes?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you so very much. I certainly appreciate that. Thank you for the time. I'll make it as worthwhile as I possibly can.

Thank you very much, witnesses, and thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak.

My riding of Essex sits very, very close to the busiest international border in North America. The movement of goods—commerce, if you will—truly goes hand in hand with the movement of people. What I mean by this is that here in Windsor-Essex, in manufacturing and auto and the space industry we are losing business. We are losing jobs hand over fist.

Earlier on, one of the witnesses—forgive me, but I forget who it was—mentioned that there's a process in place at the border. I'm not sure if that process is really very strong. What's happening is that we cannot get our American counterparts onto our shop factory floors in Windsor-Essex to look at a part. Just last week they literally took an electric seat out of a car and had to ship it over to Canada. That takes days. So we're losing contracts.

Has there been any discussion between the Canadian and the U.S. governments with regard to broadening the definition of “contractual obligation”? Our Canadian industries, manufacturing companies, are losing business because they are under contractual obligation to have people from the U.S. come to the shop floor, look at the part and approve it to the tune of maybe two hours. They then go back home and wait in quarantine for 14 days. I believe they should be essential. I'm wondering if there's been any discussion around really broadening that definition—again, we're not asking about busting the borders open—to allow for the contractual obligation.

I would ask either witness to please respond to that.

[Michael Grant]

Maybe I'll take a crack, and then Steve might want to come in.

As Steve mentioned earlier, since the border measures were put in place, they included provisions to allow essential workers and essential goods to continue. This includes moving goods back and forth across the border. At the same time, I think your point is very well taken. There obviously are some companies that have been affected and haven't been able to have visitors or technicians come in. I know that's something we have looked at.

I do know that in some instances, where it's getting to the point of national interest and there has been a need for technicians to come in, there are some provisions available to allow that to happen. I'll give you one example in that regard. It perhaps doesn't exactly fit yours, but it might serve to illustrate it. Canada, of course, is an aerospace leader. Whether in the production of airplanes or whether in simulators, Canada is the only place where some of this can be acquired. The folks who need these services or who are acquiring these products had to come into Canada, and there were exceptions made away from the 14-day quarantine. I can't speak to exactly the examples you raised, but there have been instances to allow that to happen.

The last comment I'll make is that the arrangement with the United States, as everyone knows, has been reviewed on a monthly basis and has been extended every month. Now the additional provision about people entering Canada having to go through testing is in place until April 30. These are measures that are reviewed on a regular basis. I think everyone wants to see them eliminated as soon as possible, but it will be very much guided by the science and by those experts who will be able to tell us when the time is right to begin to relax them.

Your point is very well noted in terms of the critical industries and the need to get access to specific people in order to keep sales moving.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

I know I'm going to run out of time here, Mr. Chair. Can you give me an idea of how much time I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

You have 40 seconds.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the answer. I appreciate that.

We're talking to the tune of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 to 300 individuals when I'm talking about this locally. I'm trying to look at it from a hundred thousand feet, but locally, as an example, these are 200 to 300 individuals in order to save a hundred million dollars' worth of the economy, of commerce and trade.

I really think we need to focus very strongly not only on how we can save jobs, create jobs and create the economy, but on these people, who in my opinion need to be deemed essential. I used to work in the United States myself. I had an L-1A visa for years. There are about 8,000 to 10,000 visas out there that are being affected. It's very serious, and we need to hit it with a really big baseball bat.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for indulging me with this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Next we have Mrs. Romanado, please, for five minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our two witnesses.

I don't want to repeat some of the questions that my colleagues have asked, but I do want to focus on two issues.

The first one is that the President of the United States just said publicly—I want to make sure I don't get it wrong—that the U.S. will now have enough vaccines for every American adult by the end of May. Further to comments from my colleague MP Alleslev regarding criteria for reconsideration of border openings, I know you mentioned that we do this on a monthly basis, usually on the 21st of the month.

Since we've heard reports that the United States would not provide vaccines to Canada until all of their citizens are vaccinated, can we anticipate that given this new information regarding vaccine rollouts in the United States there is a possibility of increased collaboration with respect to procuring vaccines from the United States as of the end of May?

[Michael Grant]

Thanks for the question.

I apologize. I'm not involved in the procurement of vaccines, so I wouldn't have those details.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Given the fact that during the bilateral meeting this is something that was of course top of mind, and given our continental security, I would anticipate that this will be a conversation between Canada and the United States with respect to increasing access to vaccines. Is it safe to assume this?

[Michael Grant]

I think that's a safe assumption. I also think it's a safe assumption that Canada will continue to pursue vaccines that have been approved by Canada wherever they may be available.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

I want to go on now to comments made by my colleague MP McKay.

I had the opportunity in 2016 to visit NORAD as part of the national defence committee. I spent the first four years of my first mandate on the national defence committee. Can you talk a bit about that important relationship with respect to NORAD? We know that the North Warning System is looking at an upgrade. Canada is in a search for fighter jet replacements, and we know there are two companies that are in the running in the United States for possible replacements.

Could you could elaborate a little more on the importance of defence, our continental defence, and also on the importance of looking at that from a holistic point of view with the relationship with the United States?

[Michael Grant]

Sure.

As I think everybody knows, NORAD is arguably the closest defence relationship in the world. It has served us very well for decades now, and it's not surprising that we're going through a period of reflection and modernization. The world has changed, and it's important that NORAD remain modern.

This gives us a great opportunity, especially now, as I've mentioned, with the two governments in significant alignment. It gives us a great opportunity to look at all aspects of our collective security. I'm not the expert on fighter jets, so I won't go there, nor on the North Warning System, but these are key aspects of that relationship.

I think that not only does it serve our clear interests in terms of our security of North America, but it sends a very strong signal to the world of what Canada and the United States stand for together.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

Finally, I want to touch on the possible provisions you mentioned we were looking at in terms of Line 5. What are some of those possible provisions in the event that this agreement between the Michigan governor and Enbridge for Line 5 doesn't, unfortunately, happen? What are the provisions that Canada is looking at in terms of making sure supply is not cut off?

[Michael Grant]

To reiterate, our objective is to find a resolution to this issue. There are processes going on in the state court and the federal courts. They have a life of their own. We're following them. We're looking at whether and how the federal government needs to be involved in those. At the same time, we have stepped up our engagement and advocacy across the board in the key states and with the federal government.

In terms of the provisions, we've talked already about the 1977 treaty. We've talked about NAFTA and about CUSMA. All I can say is that we are busily looking at all potential provisions to see what may be needed and how it could be employed. We're doing so and working very closely with Enbridge and with the provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

For the final five minutes, we will go to Mr. Housefather, please.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Strahl, for suggesting this. I appreciate having the chance to ask a couple of questions.

Thank you very much to both witnesses. I very much appreciate your service.

Most of my questions will focus on Line 5, but I have one question on vaccines. We talked a little bit about AstraZeneca and the 20 million doses that we expect to be shipped from the United States. My understanding is that both Pfizer and Moderna were unable to ship from the United States based on an executive order. Am I incorrect that it's an executive order prohibiting vaccine shipments from the United States? Is it merely exclusivity agreements between the government of the United States and Pfizer and Moderna related to domestic shipments from their U.S. plants?

Is there indeed some executive order related to vaccine shipments from the United States that we need to worry about?

[Michael Grant]

Again, I'll add the caveat that I'm not involved in the direct procurement of vaccines, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about all of that.

As of now, Canada has an arrangement with AstraZeneca to provide 20 million doses. We are watching very carefully and engaging with the federal government in the United States. Our expectation is that this will be upheld, but as it is an extremely important and serious issue for all Canadians, we need to continue to be engaged.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand, but again, my question is this: Is there an executive order that we're seeking an exemption from related to AstraZeneca, or is there no [Technical difficulty—Editor] able to somehow come to an agreement with Pfizer and Moderna to ship from the United States that we could do so, or is there a contract between the United States and Pfizer and Moderna for exclusivity, which means we need United States approval to get Pfizer and Moderna but not AstraZeneca? That is my question.