Foreign Affairs Committee on June 2nd, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll have just a quick comment from Ms. Dawson and then from the ambassador. We're almost out of time.

Ms. Dawson.

[Laura Dawson]

I'll keep it brief.

Relating to labour mobility and skills, this comment draws upon an initiative that Ambassador Jacobson took a real leadership role on, and that is moving skilled workers from U.S. states who are in demand for occupations in the oil sands. In particular I'm thinking of the welders, electricians, etc.

Some of the lessons learned that we got from that include that it's not just the credentialling authorities who are necessary to make that happen. We also had the participation of the labour unions on both sides of the border, saying, “We get that having an integrated market for this occupation is important.” We also had motivated employers and we had motivated regulators, because there was such a labour shortage in Alberta at the time.

So while it's important that we focus on encouraging the credentialling agencies to cooperate, you also need the partnership of provinces, labour unions, employers' and workers' organizations, and colleges as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Ambassador.

[Francisco Suarez Davila]

Very briefly, something that worked for 40 years, the temporary agricultural workers program, with very specific rules, was an agreement. We had 18,000 people come and go; that's it.

I think what you have to do is pick sectors for which there is a great need, in regions where there's a great need, and to work the compatibilities. Clearly it would be the western provinces. All of them have a serious problem of semi-skilled workers—welders, machinists, electricians. I think the three countries probably could work on that specific sector, probably linked to energy. It would be something very specific and not involve the whole country, but basically the provinces that need it most.

Eventually, for Mexico we'll be needing a lot of Canadian engineers, so it's both ways, but it's sector-specific.

The last comment I have, which is very practical, is to facilitate things for businessmen, so that for businessmen in well-known prestigious companies you facilitate the possibility of having movement of people. For example, I know that the Four Seasons hotel group would like to have Mexicans work at the middle level. They would work in Canada, in the United States, and in Mexico. It makes this very difficult.

There's a need for pilot projects, probably with specific firms that are prestigious, so that you would not have the problem that they would do something illegal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to turn it over to Madame Laverdière now for five minutes, please.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all our witnesses for their very interesting presentations this morning.

My first question is for Mr. Jacobson.

Mr. Jacobson, in your opinion as someone who has been an ambassador, what might be done during the next summit to improve cooperation between the three countries to address the threats posed by climate change?

[David Jacobson]

As I said earlier, I view this as a personal matter, as one of the most serious issues we face. We have to address it. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to address it. This is also an area where there has to be cooperation because we all live in the same climate. As each of us contributes to the degradation of the climate, the worse off we all are.

I do think it's very important, for example, to find some uniform way of pricing carbon. If one country prices it cheaper than another country, or one country doesn't price it, then over time all of the heavily polluting industries are going to move there. It's the lowest common denominator.

I do think eventually we're going to get there. This is an area where, quite frankly, there is plenty of fault to go around. My country is by no means without fault on this one and neither is Mexico or Canada. I think the sooner we work together the easier it will be. It will not be easy, but the easier it will be to address it.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much. That was very interesting.

Now, I have a bit of a challenge for some of the witnesses.

Ms. Dawson, I was struck by what you said. You basically talked about our lack of resources in Washington to promote Canada's place. I, myself, spent four years in Washington, and I think I have some understanding of the challenges that entails.

Mr. Miller, you spoke about the closure of consulates in the United States, which has affected average citizens, potential immigrants. In my riding, we supported people who had been forgotten by the Canadian consulates in the United States. It took some time before their files were resolved. There really is a challenge regarding the resources that we dedicate to the relationship with the United States.

I would like to ask both of you to dream a little. Strategically speaking, where do you think the most important place is to assign our limited resources? In the consulates, in Washington, elsewhere? I'm asking you to speculate.

[Eric Miller]

I reference the closures of the Citizenship and Immigration facilities in Buffalo and Seattle. Where that has created difficulties that have specifically come to the fore with respect to those who are requiring business visas to come to Canada to invest.

One story I'd recount to you is from a friend of mine who's a lawyer and who represents a Fortune 1000 company. They had a senior executive who was coming to Ontario for what he hoped would be to close the agreement. He went to the border, as he had been doing, and he was detained for 90 minutes and pulled into secondary. After that experience, he said, “I don't want my employees to have to go through this.” He took his 375 jobs and established the facility in the United States.

That is something that won't show up in the economic statistics, but making it easier to get people across the border by having advanced information, by using technology, and by having people present on the ground is important.

We learned from cargo space that if you do things away from the border you avoid problems at the border. We've gone backwards on that.

I served representing Industry Canada in Washington for four years. One of the things I know about how the U.S. system works—and Laura is absolutely right on this—is you have to be out there, including in the states and provinces. We do have to make the United States and Mexico among our most important resource allocations for foreign affairs. There is no substitute for seeing a member of Congress in their office and in their district. You see them in Washington and you get 20 minutes. You see them in their district, they invite you to a barbecue and you get an hour and a half.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to finish off this round with Mr. Hawn.

You have five minutes, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

Ambassador Jacobson, it's great to see you again. I have fond memories of sipping double-doubles in a bunker in Kandahar under rocket attack, and of many miles walked in the Netherlands.

I want to start with you, Ambassador Jacobson. We've talked a lot about trusted travellers, and so on. How far can we go with that, based on a NEXUS platform, or other such thing? The majority of people on both sides of the border are not threats to anything. How far can we go in identifying the people who aren't threats and get them through there lickety-split?

[David Jacobson]

Mr. Hawn, let me say that my trip to Afghanistan with you was one of those things I will remember for a long time.

First of all, I think the more people who can be encouraged to participate in trusted traveller programs, the better. We have to make it easier for people to participate.

There have been problems. There aren't enough people to process them. I'm no longer the ambassador, so I can say this. One of the things I always found mystifying was why someone had to be interviewed by both a CBSA and a CBP person. We could probably trust one or the other. A friend of mine in Chicago wanted to participate in the NEXUS program. He was told to go to Toronto on February 18 for his interview. He said that he had no intention of being in Toronto on February 18, so he just never did it. We have to make it easier. If we just do some common-sense things, we can make it easier.

On your question of how far we can go, one of the things I was sometimes asked, and probably a number of you have been asked, was this. You can go to Europe and you can drive from France to Germany—two countries that have a somewhat more difficult historic relationship than ours have—and you don't have to slow down. Why can't we do that?

My answer is that France and Germany have had a partial surrender of their sovereignty. There are common immigration standards. Once you're in one, you're in all. One of the things I haven't heard a whole lot, in Canada or in the United States, is that, somehow or other, one of us wants to cede to the other decisions as to who gets into their country. We can go a lot farther, but I'm not sure we're going to go all the way at any point in the near future.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Dawson, you talked about—I think it was when we were talking about NAFTA, and so on—some sectors that may be weaker or stronger, or under some partial threat with the TPP in respect to NAFTA. Can you identify some of the sectors that we should pay attention to, either the weak ones or the strong ones?

[Laura Dawson]

Sure.

One of the things we're facing right now is whether or not Canada is going to have to give on its supply-managed sectors in dairy and poultry, and whether or not Canada is willing to give on supply-managed sectors in dairy and poultry.

In my personal opinion, these are policies better suited to the food security needs of wartime than a competitive North American exporting industry, but that is a public policy decision for Canadians to make. If we are spending so much time defending the interests of these sectors, it's very difficult to go to the same negotiating table and say that now we want strong access for Alberta beef, for wheat, for grains, and so on.

Also, the things that Canada does need in terms of stronger access in service industries, in consulting services, engineering services, any place we can put our brains to work and deploy our skills elsewhere in the world, are key growth sectors for Canada. But if we are deploying our negotiating reserves to defend old-school sectors, or stepping out of the TPP entirely, which we may have to do as a result of our defence of supply management, we have no opportunity to promote those high-growth sectors.

Also, I find—again, in my opinion—that our trade policy tends to be Ontario-Quebec centric, and does not pay as much attention to western Canadian—British Columbia, Pacific, Alberta—interests as it could and should.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thanks.

Personally, I think that supply management is an anachronism that needs to disappear. That's my opinion.

Mr. Miller or Mr. Dillon, we talk about energy independence for North America. What are the two or three biggest obstacles to that, and how do we attack them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just very quickly, sir. We're out of time, but go ahead and answer the question.

[John R. Dillon]

We don't particularly talk about energy independence because I'm not sure exactly how you would define those words. We have the tremendous opportunity to be more energy self-sufficient in North America. I think two of the biggest obstacles, obviously, are improving the energy infrastructure among our countries, and secondly, getting public support, quite frankly, for the kinds of energy opportunities that we have. I'm not now just talking about pipelines. I'm talking about building up all the renewable energy assets that we have as well. It's getting approval for wind energy projects and for transmission lines that will connect cleaner forms of electricity with the markets for them. Those are a couple of the biggest obstacles.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to start our third round and we'll start with Mr. Schellenberger. Sir, you have five minutes, please.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to maybe put this out to everyone, but Mr. Jacobson, you told me to be easy on you so I'm going to be. But it's something with me, as I come from a very agricultural area—the COOL process. The U.S. always talks about freer trade and seems to put non-tariff blocks into processes. COOL not only hurt a lot of Canadian producers but also it closed a lot of American processing plants that used Canadian beef and Canadian pork.

Four times this has gone to the WTO, and the WTO has ruled in favour of Canada and said that the COOL labelling system is wrong or goes against our treaty. It seems the only thing we can do is to impose tariffs. It's the only way you can come around something like that. We're talking about getting rid of tariffs. Some of these things happen.

I think back to when BSE hit. I was only elected for 10 days when BSE hit, so I've been with it for roughly 12 years. Back then when finally our beef was cleared scientifically as being safe, R-CALF, in the western states, put up a protest and that lasted for anywhere between four or six years, I think, before we got the market open to some cuts of beef.

How do we correct some of these things when they're negotiated and then they're adjudicated and found wrong, but the United States never wants to go back on it?

[David Jacobson]

Mr. Schellenberger, I am not going to sit here and defend country of origin labelling.

This is an issue that was caused by some legislation in the United States. The problem was that the administration was not free to ignore the legislation. The law says what the law says, and the President has to enforce the law. The good news is that after the fourth round, the last round, there have been some bills introduced in Congress which—there is some hope—will be considered on an expedited basis to undo some or all of the country of origin labelling problems.

But there are problems that go in both directions. To be frank about this, what both countries have to do—and I think that Mexico has to join in this as well—is to look at these things and decide which of them are there for legitimate health and safety reasons and which of them are there to protect our industries. If it's the former, that's okay; if it's the latter, maybe it's not so okay.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

How would you envision that Canada, the U.S., and Mexico standardize their customs operations, given existing differences among all three countries? I know it's been talked about—NEXUS and advance.... Is that primarily the best way?

[David Jacobson]

I don't think Canada, the United States, and Mexico should standardize their rules of entry, or if they should, it's just happenstance, because we all have a little bit different interests.

What we ought to do, though, is try to ascertain, as we talked about earlier, the many safe, good, honest, hard-working folks who pose no threat to anyone. The less time people at the border and people at the airports have to spend checking my grandmother's shoes, the more time they can spend looking for bad guys. This applies to all three countries. We need to try to isolate as many people as we can in the vast, unwashed middle—right now, we don't know who they are—and put them in the good guy category. The trick is not to put them in the bad guy category unless they're bad.

To me, that's the way we address this problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Day, you have five minutes, please.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being here.

My first question concerns supply. I don't share Mr. Hawn's position. Since he lives out west, he will certainly favour the beef market, but the pork, fish and timber markets, and supply management for poultry, eggs and milk are as important. In eastern Canada, in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, there are enormous consequences with potential reductions in supply management.

We need to protect supply management as much as the beef market. It isn't one thing against the other. This is part of what Canada wants to develop to improve its economic situation. We can't go back to being a country that only does mining and exports all our raw products. We want to improve the situation of manufacturers. We also want primary processing to be done in the country. We want to create jobs and opportunities so that our country can develop.

I would like you to come back to supply management. I will have other questions after that.

[Laura Dawson]

I think the difference between supply management and the other sectors you mentioned—forestry, fishing, etc.—is that in those other sectors, while they may have certain protections, while they may have certain Canadian programs that support and promote our production in those sectors, with supply management we don't export anything at all. There are no Canadian exports of dairy within the supply management system except what comes out through some very specialized, very narrow programs. If you are a manufacturer of wonderful Canadian cheese, you cannot export that, because that is the quid pro quo. That is the price you pay in order to get that guaranteed price protection: we promise never to export Canadian dairy products. This is why we have companies like Saputo relocating to Australia in order to export to high-demand Asian dairy markets. That's a very distorted system.

As well, there's just no room for new people to enter into the market, because the price of the quota, which has a value, is so high. If my son or daughter wants to become a dairy farmer, forget it. They can't afford the quota. So there are no new entrants into that market, which is a very stiff, restricted, retrogressive position, as far as I'm concerned.