Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States Committee on April 1st, 2021

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. I know you wanted to pop in a question, so I will share my time with you, sir.

I also wanted to come back to some of what Mr. Lewis was saying. I don't see some of this as a border issue. I see some of this as a global supply issue, where there are shortages in components worldwide, including, for example, in semiconductors. It's not a question of the border being closed. It's a question of a worldwide supply shortage during COVID.

I'd like to turn it around, Mr. Verheul. You have a lot more experience in this area than I do, and I want to go back and get into your knowledge of history here. I would actually see the $2-trillion American expenditure on infrastructure as an opportunity, as opposed to a liability. Could you see it also that way, sir?

[Steve Verheul]

Yes, absolutely.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

A lot of what we're talking about potentially losing, we never really had in terms of ability to get into the U.S. market, because the U.S. wasn't spending these huge amounts of money on infrastructure, correct? This is one of the biggest spends in the last 10 years. Would that be correct?

[Steve Verheul]

Yes. We have had infrastructure packages in the past, but this is certainly of a far different scale.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

We should be looking at how Canadians can get in there and compete with Americans for these opportunities and figure out how to lobby Congress to make sure that when legislation is actually adopted, Canada is given whatever wide exemptions are possible under the law. We should not wait until a year after the law is adopted. Based on what you explained to us before, we should do so because otherwise expenditures will already have been made, in large part, under the bill. Is that essentially correct, sir?

[Steve Verheul]

We do want to get in early, which is why we're working closely with the U.S. administration now. We're working closely with the U.S. Congress, U.S. business allies, U.S. union allies and, across the board, different levels of government. Now is the time for us to be doing a full-court press on this.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Verheul, if our committee is going to be part of the full-court press—and the minister invited our committee to help in the team Canada approach—what U.S. congressional committees should our chair approach in order for us to speak directly to our U.S. counterparts? Would it be, for example, the transport committee? Would it be the infrastructure committee? Or would it be the appropriations committee?

[Steve Verheul]

Well, this bill, as we see it now—I mean, it's not yet a bill—once it does enter the U.S. Congress, we do expect that this is going to be assigned to a fairly wide range of different committees within the U.S. Congress, both in the House and on the Senate side. We can certainly keep you informed about how that structure will unfold, because I think we'll be wanting to talk to a number of different committees and a number of different representatives.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

As it is a spending bill, it would first be introduced in the House, correct?

[Steve Verheul]

That's right.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Perfect.

Mr. Chair, I know that I have only a couple of minutes left. I'm turning it over to you now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Thank you very much, and again, thank you to the officials for being here.

Mr. Verheul, I have a two-part question.

If you could, please highlight the impact of buy America. I know that we will be impacted, to whatever extent, and as for internationally, I have a feeling that our international allies and trade partners will also be impacted, I believe. Have there been any discussions or can you provide any commentary on how they are approaching this situation?

[Steve Verheul]

Well, I think there's certainly wide concern, because if the U.S. does proceed as it's planning, with a $2-trillion infrastructure package, that's a lot of economic opportunity. I think it's recognized that Canada is potentially affected by this more than most others because of our economic relationship with the U.S. Mexico is certainly concerned about this. The European Union and others are also concerned about this.

But I think what many countries are very clear about is that the U.S. is within its international rights to pursue this kind of approach, which is why our emphasis is on the relationships we have with the administration, with Congress and with our allies in the U.S. and to convince them that they're better off if Canada is part of this picture. They're better off economically, from a perspective of competitiveness and from an environmental perspective. They're far better off if Canadian inputs are treated as U.S. inputs would be treated under this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

To reiterate Mr. Housefather's point, I hope you will keep us in the loop as the bill makes its way through Congress as to what committees we should be engaging with or just for us to know where the file is at.

That brings our afternoon to a close. I want to thank all the members for their time today, and especially the officials. It's a Thursday before a long weekend, so I'm sure you want to get back to be with your families. Thank you very much for again enlightening us and giving us some sort of framework of what we should be looking at going forward.

I wish everybody a happy Easter. I'll see you next week.