Foreign Affairs Committee on April 11th, 2017

[The Chair (Hon. Robert Nault (Kenora, Lib.)), Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, first and foremost, good morning. Thank you for getting here on time.

Now that everyone's here, I think we'll get started with our witnesses. Keep in mind there may be votes in the second half of our discussions this morning. We may have to suspend and/or shut down depending on how we make out. For the first hour, I think we're good to go.

This is a study on foreign policy as it relates to the U.S. and Canada.

In front of us is David Morrison, assistant deputy minister, the Americas, and chief development officer. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Morrison to introduce his colleagues and then make his presentation. Then as per usual, we'll get right into questions.

For the information of our witnesses, we're very interested, of course, in the ongoing discussions between Canada and the U.S. vis-à-vis not just trade but the overall relationships, including matters like security and others and the view of Global Affairs as to where all of this will take us down the road. We may ask those kinds of crystal ball questions, which I think are important to get a sense of the direction of the Government of Canada.

I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Morrison, and we'll go from there.

David.

[David Morrison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Americas, and Chief Development Officer, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, everyone.

We really appreciate this invitation to appear before the committee as you begin this timely and important study. The U.S. relationship is obviously critical for Canada. On the economic side, trade in goods and services with the U.S. is equal to 44% of Canadian GDP. Seventy-two per cent of Canada's exports of goods and services go to the United states. That figure is always over 70%.

The relationship is equally important or is very important for Americans as well. Thirty-two states have Canada as their largest international export destination, and nine million jobs are linked to trade with Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Morrison, I'm sorry. Just for the record, could you introduce your two colleagues?

[David Morrison]

Sure. I'm joined today by my colleagues Martin Moen, the director general for North America and investment at Global Affairs Canada, and by Heidi Hulan, the director general of the international security policy bureau.

I'll make the opening statement touching on many of the issues that I think you are looking at. We were given a list of nine wider issue areas. Then my colleagues and I would be very happy to answer questions.

By way of preamble, I was going to say that working with parliamentarians is a critical feature of Global Affairs Canada's outreach strategy in engaging the Trump administration. In fact, the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group has been down in Washington, and the embassy there has been hosting a wide range of parliamentarians individually and in groups as we seek to forge new relations with the Trump administration. We believe that a cross-party, non-partisan approach is the best way to have an impact on American decision-makers and opinion leaders.

The first question in your study is about the overall priorities in Canada's relationship with the United States under the Trump administration. In a certain sense, this was the subject of the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, D.C., on February 13.

The priorities are set out in the joint statement, which is a roadmap for future cooperation between our two countries. It includes five areas of focus, each with concrete commitments. I’ll give you some examples.

The first example concerns the growth of our economies.

When it comes to regulatory cooperation, the Treasury Board Secretariat is leading an ongoing dialogue with senior American government officials. The goal is for the officials to reaffirm the support of the new American administration for the efforts to continue the work and advance regulatory cooperation and alignment opportunities across key economic sectors.

Minister Brison has met with his American counterpart in Washington, and both parties are keen to push this agenda forward.

Another point mentioned in terms of growing our economies was the Gordie Howe International Bridge. This project is under way, and the winner of the call for proposals for the public-private partnership will be chosen in the spring of 2018.

The second area in terms of growing the economies was on promoting energy security and the environment. On energy security, as we know, the KXL pipeline has now received its presidential permit, and several other projects, either pipelines or electricity transmission lines, are at different stages of review in the U.S. process.

Another area mentioned was air and water quality. Environment and Climate Change Canada is working closely with the U.S., and broad co-operation continues on air and water.

Another area highlighted was keeping our borders secure. Part of this is the entry-exit question. Bill C-21 has been tabled and implementation is expected by 2018.

On pre-clearance, Bill C-23 is at second reading and is shortly going to committee. Implementation is still to be determined and we are now also actively exploring with the U.S. how to do joint pre-inspection for cargo.

Another area was working together as allies in the world's hot spots. NORAD was mentioned specifically. The next steps in modernization of NORAD will be tied to the government's defence policy review, which I believe will be coming out shortly.

On Daesh, Minister Freeland attended a Global Coalition against Daesh meeting in Washington, D.C., hosted by Secretary Tillerson on March 22. As you know, Canada is a member of the 68-member coalition to degrade and defeat Daesh.

Finally, on growing our economies, there was the establishment of the Canada-U.S. Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders. This council is committed to removing barriers to women's participation in the business community and supporting women by promoting the growth of women-owned enterprises to further contribute to overall economic growth and competitiveness.

Let me now say a word about the government's overall engagement strategy with the new U.S. administration and the new U.S. Congress, as well as at the state level.

On January 20, the Government of Canada, provinces and territories embarked on an ambitious whole-of-Canada strategy of engagement and outreach toward the United States. This includes not only the Prime Minister's official visit to Washington in February, but also numerous visits, meetings and other exchanges between senior Canadian government officials and their American counterparts, as well as with political leaders at both national and state levels.

The Prime Minister, cabinet members, parliamentary secretaries, premiers, provincial and territorial ministers, parliamentary committees and other parliamentarians have completed over 70 visits, of which 40 were by 18 cabinet members and three parliamentary secretaries. These figures will continue to grow as senior Canadian government officials embark on outreach to the United States in the coming months.

Our strategy has been to engage with as wide a spectrum of interlocutors as possible from across the United States. We've developed an 11-state outreach program for cabinet ministers. Our goal is to bring our message to parts of the United States that often don't get national-level attention but are nonetheless critical to the success of Canada-U.S. relations.

Let me now turn to some of the pressing commercial issues. Given the administration's “America first” approach, several commercial issues have received media attention recently. We would like to provide you with an update on some of the key files.

On NAFTA, the U.S. administration has clearly noted its intention to renegotiate the agreement, but it has not yet notified Congress accordingly. Canada is open to discussing improvements to NAFTA that will benefit all three NAFTA parties but has not discussed the scope or objectives of any renegotiation. Should these negotiations take place, Canada will be prepared to discuss improvements to the agreement at the appropriate time, as the government has stated. Advocacy efforts are also under way in the U.S. to emphasize the importance of the Canadian market to U.S. exporters, and officials are working with provinces and Canadian businesses to coordinate messaging.

On softwood lumber, Canada continues to believe that it is in both countries' best interests to negotiate a new softwood lumber agreement. Minister Freeland and Ambassador MacNaughton are laying the groundwork with our American counterparts for the eventual restart of negotiations. Canadian negotiators stand ready to re-engage as soon as the United States is ready to do so.

While Canada is committed to negotiating a new softwood lumber agreement, we will not accept a deal at any cost. We want an agreement that is in the best interests of our industry. Also, although we would prefer a quick resolution to this dispute, the Government of Canada is also prepared to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry, including through litigation at the WTO or under NAFTA, as appropriate.

Let me touch now on the border adjustment tax.

The concept is currently being contemplated by Republicans in the House of Representatives. We think the measure would be bad for both countries. It would impose extra costs on American companies and disrupt trade at our border. The government, through the Prime Minister, has been raising concerns and soliciting views from a range of stakeholders in the United States, notably in the business community, to help reinforce these points with members of Congress.

I'll touch briefly now on steel. The commerce department in the United States was asked back in January to develop a plan to ensure that steel for the construction, renovation, and enlargement of pipelines in the U.S would be sourced from within the United States. We are preoccupied with this for two reasons.

The first is that the steel industry in North America is extraordinarily integrated and runs on both sides of the border. The second reason that we are concerned about steel is that this is an attempt to determine procurement that is usually done via the private sector. This is not public procurement; this is the government telling private enterprises from whom they should buy. Those things are usually left to commercial considerations. We have made observations in this regard to the Department of Commerce in the course of its regular consultation process, which is ongoing. As I mentioned, my colleague Martin Moen would be pleased to answer questions on any of these commercial issues.

Let me now turn to trilateral relations, which are also a part of your study.

Canada, the U.S., and Mexico have a long history of collaborating as continental partners in the areas of security, commercial relations and competitiveness, the environment, and other areas. Since 2005 the three countries have been meeting for the North American leaders' summit, which is aimed at advancing common policy objectives in many of the areas I just mentioned. The last such meeting took place in Ottawa last June.

While there are uncertainties about the direction of trilateral co-operation since the election of President Trump, there are at the same time early signs that indicate a number of trilateral commitments from the 2016 North American leaders' summit here in Ottawa will continue. I won't elaborate on them—they have to do with the border, energy security, and regional co-operation—but I'd be happy to answer questions on those trilateral dimensions.

In addition, the annual trilateral energy and defence ministers' meetings are being planned for this spring. There's also been some talk of a trilateral foreign ministers' meeting. These meetings, along with the developments in the renegotiation of NAFTA, will provide us with signals as to the future direction of trilateral co-operation.

I'll now talk about foreign policy cooperation.

The Trump administration came to office with a very forthright “America First” approach to foreign policy. This approach overtly places the United States and its interests at the forefront. The approach focuses on economic nationalism, protection of American sovereignty and hard power.

This policy is in distinct contrast with the policies of both Democratic and Republican administrations that have led the United States since the Second World War. These policies emphasized American leadership in advancing democracy and human rights, promoting freer trade, building international institutions, and working closely with allies to advance these objectives.

At this point, it isn't clear how the overarching principles of “America First” will translate into day-to-day policies. Furthermore, many of the senior positions in the administration, such as in the State Department, haven't been filled yet. We're in a very early phase.

Intervening events, such as North Korea's missile test or Syria's use of chemical weapons on civilians, may significantly shape the Trump administration's foreign policy. Canada condemned the chemical weapons attack and fully supported the United States' response.

As I mentioned earlier, my colleague, Heidi Hulan, will be pleased to answer any detailed questions.

Let me end there. I've tried to give you a brief overview of some of the main themes in Canada-U.S. relations right now. We look forward to the committee's deliberations and the eventual report.

We would welcome your questions and comments. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Morrison, for that very good overview.

We'll start right off with questions from Mr. Allison, please.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Thank you to our witnesses for being here. It's not often we get trade officials here at foreign affairs, so I'm kind of excited about that. Indeed, my questions will be around the trade angle. I will have a couple of questions before I turn it over to Mr. Kent. I'll just throw them out there, and then I'll come back and give a little more detail.

My first question is about regulatory co-operation and pre-clearance. You said that it's progressing. One of the first questions we were asked everywhere we went in eastern Europe was about Trump and what's going on. I'll try not to do that to you, but perhaps there are signals, just based on the conversations and dialogue you guys have had, that would indicate how those are going, and whether they'll continue along those ways and there won't be a pullback, given all the other rhetoric that's been said.

The second question is about agriculture subsidies. I know they come up all the time in terms of our supply management system. We talk about softwood lumber. I've heard the number of $30 billion for subsidies in the U.S. I don't know if you guys track those things. They're complicated. I know, from when we've been down there, there's always some program somehow that gets around that kind of stuff. Perhaps you could share some of your thoughts on that.

But let's go back to the first question, which is about regulatory co-operation and pre-clearance. Based on the conversations that have happened, do you see that continuing to still move forward? Do you see any concern, based on some of the other rhetoric that's been going on around that?

[David Morrison]

Thanks very much. I'll do the first one, and Martin can do the second.

We think that regulatory co-operation and borders in general, pre-clearance being part of the borders issue, are two areas with considerable promise of collaboration with the Trump administration. The Trump administration has come out as wishing to deregulate in a “two for one” sense, so it won't be all straightforward, but Minister Brison met with Mr. Mulvaney, his White House counterpart. Doing more together on the regulatory co-operation agenda is something that I think both parties are enthusiastic about. The U.S. is also looking to Canada for a number of models of how Canada regulates. They're very open, and have expressed interest in visiting and checking out some of our models.

I said that pre-clearance is a subset of borders. I would commend to you the testimony that Secretary Kelly of Homeland Security recently gave in the U.S. He was up here in March for a very successful visit, hosted by Minister Goodale. I believe last week he gave testimony in which he was effusive in his praise for the way Canada deals with the northern border. At the end of his testimony, he said that he thought the northern border should be thinned rather than thickened. The challenge with the border, of course, is balancing the security imperative with the trade facilitation imperative, pre-clearance being very much about both of those things.

The multimodal pre-clearance agreement is going forth. I think I mentioned that the bill in that regard is at second reading and will come to committee shortly. The joint statement that came from the February 13 visit by Prime Minister Trudeau to President Trump does mention an interest in pushing pre-clearance forward even further, including on cargo.

Again, I think there's real scope to make progress on those files with the Trump administration.

[Martin Moen, Director General, North America Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

With regard to your question on agricultural subsidies and the United States, the WTO permits its members to provide agricultural subsidies within certain specified limits. In terms of the United States, there's no question that it provides very large amounts of agricultural subsidies to many different sectors—through the Farm Bill, through local programs. It's certainly something we monitor and are very much aware of.

We could follow up with more detail, but at a general level there's no question that there are substantial agricultural subsidies across the range of production in the United States.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Would you guys actually track a number? Someone in supply management, oddly enough, mentioned on the weekend that it's, like, $30 billion. I realize that it permeates everything they do, but do you guys have a ballpark figure?

[Martin Moen]

I don't have the numbers with me, but the United States does have notifications to the WTO where they provide their information. We could work with that information—

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Okay; if at all possible.

I'll pass it over to Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks to all of you for appearing today.

In 2005 then foreign minister Pettigrew conveyed Canada's disinclination, its refusal, to join the ballistic missile defence of North America. In the last government, the defence committee of the House and a Senate report both recommended reconsideration of participation in BMD. Defence minister Sajjan last fall revealed, as part of the defence review, that it was back on the table.

I wonder if you could discuss the considerations today, given North Korea's ballistic missile testing and its bellicose attitude, the ramped-up rhetoric between Washington and North Korea, and also President Trump's encouragement of all allied partners to invest more and to participate to a greater degree in not only the defence of North America but also of NATO and the world.

[Heidi Hulan, Director General, International Security Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you for that, and good morning to the members of the committee.

On the general point of our security dialogue with the Americans, I think the members of the committee are aware that this is both broad and deep, and it covers both continental defence and our shared interest in the Euro-Atlantic region and the stability of that zone.

With respect to ballistic missile defence, you've correctly captured the history of that. I would say that as the global security environment has evolved—and the North Korean missile threat is one that we are tracking extremely closely, particularly with respect to the pacing of their testing, which suggests advances in their capabilities—we continue to examine whether our current policy regarding participation in continental BMD addresses Canadian safety and security interests. You are correct that as part of the defence policy review, the defence department and Mr. Sajjan consulted Canadians on this question. As you are probably aware, that review is currently being concluded, so it will be for ministers to decide how to pronounce on this particular issue. Among the things that we weigh for this issue are questions such as the nature and severity of the threat, the question of what Canadian involvement could bring to bear on that system, and, indeed, whether or not there is a request of Canada to make a contribution to that.

Could I say a few words on the dialogue that is ongoing with respect to defence spending more generally? You've raised it, and I know it's a subject of real interest in the public domain. The new American administration has taken a very strong view, as you know, with respect to the NATO target of 2% of GDP defence spending. Canada's view on this has been and remains that burden sharing, within the alliance and more generally, cannot be measured solely in the number of dollars that are spent on defence. How you spend your money is at least as important as how much money you spend. In that regard, we consider capabilities to be first and foremost, and our contributions to alliance operations to be the real measure.

On this front, Canada has, as you know, contributed to every NATO mission since the alliance was established 68 years ago. We're now taking a lead in Eastern Europe with the leadership of a battle group in Latvia as part of the enhanced forward presence in Eastern and Central Europe, and we are the sixth-largest contributor to the alliance. We feel the need to take the view that we have consistently shown our capability and readiness and willingness to assume a very large share of the NATO burden, both within the alliance and in its expeditionary missions, and that remains unchanged. I expect this to be a focus of discussion when leaders meet in May, and Canada looks forward to those discussions with allies.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Kent and Mr. Allison.

We'll go to Mr. Sidhu, please.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here this morning.

Ms. Hulan, since you have the floor, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the current world nuclear weapons stockpile, given your expertise in the arena of non-proliferation and disarmament. In your view, is enough being done on the global stage towards the goal of global nuclear disarmament? What sort of role do you see Canada playing or has it played in the past?

Thank you.

[Heidi Hulan]

The global disarmament environment is perhaps more polarized at the current time than at any period during my career. Strong views regarding the slow pace of disarmament by the P5 and others who possess nuclear weapons, obviously, have given rise to the current negotiations under way in New York on a nuclear weapons ban treaty.

Canada very much shares the frustration with the slow pace of disarmament. The prevalence and number of nuclear weapons—whose figures I have not brought with me today, so I can't quote them—is many times more than what is required for global security. Therefore, we have always supported the idea of global zero. We also support the movement, which has built up, regarding the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

However, our view of the current negotiations is that they are likely to deepen divisions between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in a way that is likely to make real disarmament in the future more, not less, difficult. Then we see in these negotiations the potential only for a declaratory statement. In this treaty to ban nuclear weapons, currently under negotiation, there will be no verification provisions, no targets, and no involvement by the people who actually possess the weapons, and therefore need to dispose of them. Therefore, the treaty is not going to lead to the elimination of a single nuclear weapon.

As a result of all of those dimensions—the practicality associated with it as well as the long-term impact on disarmament prospects—we've taken the view that now is not the time for that discussion. However, we remain convinced that earnest step-by-step negotiations with verification provisions toward nuclear disarmament are essential and cannot wait.

That is why Canada initiated a resolution at the UN General Assembly last fall, which I'm pleased to say passed with the overwhelming support of 177 member states, to initiate a preparatory group to lay the groundwork for the eventual negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty that I will chair for the United Nations. The elimination and restriction of access to fissile material, the material that gives nuclear weapons their potency, is almost universally regarded as the next step toward a world free of nuclear weapons. We believe it is possible to make progress. I'm very proud to say that Canada has led that effort internationally for 20 years now, and we will continue to lead that in the coming year.

I'd be happy to speak more about it as that process unfolds, but for now we're at a very early stage.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

My next question is for Mr. Morrison. I know Mr. Trump and the U.S.A. is a hot topic, but with your background with CIDA and your lead on bilateral development assistance, how would the comprehensive approach to economic assistance be developed in the case of Ukraine. What tools and processes would Global Affairs Canada use to assess the need in Ukraine in order to offer effective economic assistance?

[David Morrison]

Thank you.

You mentioned my past at CIDA, where I was in charge of bilateral development assistance. A couple of things have happened since then. The first was the amalgamation of CIDA and DFAIT into Global Affairs. Most of that programming still happens in the same way it did under CIDA, and we still have a major program in Ukraine. There has been a year-long process of consultation and policy development on the development side in tandem with the forthcoming defence review, which looks at a new policy funding framework and delivery mechanisms for our overall assistance worldwide.

With respect to Ukraine specifically, we have a country team on site. We run that particular program in a decentralized fashion, meaning that the Canadian staff are on the ground, in the capital and elsewhere, where we are programming. That's how we determine what the best programs are to support.

In terms of the country's own plans, as you mentioned, for economic development as well as social development, and any of the other priorities, the general answer to your question is that in Ukraine and elsewhere, we have people on the ground. We work through partners. Some of them are in the multilateral system, some are Canadian NGOs, and some are local NGOs that have broad local knowledge. We design our programs accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

We're going to go to Madame Laverdière.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning.

I counted, and I have 10 questions. I probably won't be able to ask them all, but I'll try to proceed very quickly.

Before asking my questions, I'll make a quick comment on the nuclear weapons treaty currently being negotiated. I think it's a bit early to decide what the treaty will contain when the negotiations haven't finished yet. In the case of landmines, we knew that key players wouldn't participate in the treaty, and yet we dealt with the matter. A number of experts think it could actually be effective. I would have liked Canada to follow the lead of the Netherlands and at least agree to attend the negotiations, if only to have an insider's view.

That said, I won't launch a big debate on the issue here. However, I'd like to know whether the American authorities have explicitly asked Canada not to participate in or attend these negotiations.

[Heidi Hulan]

Thank you for the question.

The Americans, and all NATO allies, have discussed, in multiple venues, the issue of the ban treaty negotiations, with a view to collaborating, by sharing information and positions. It is a fact that we have had those discussions in New York and Brussels. In that context, there has been no direct request of Canada, but I would say there is a very shared understanding on our part that this is not in our interests at this time and will not lead to progress on the disarmament side of things.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

I know that I'm putting you in a difficult position, since nobody really knows exactly what's going to happen under the Trump administration. The administration is threatening to make drastic cuts in the area of multilateral cooperation at the United Nations, in programs such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, or UNFPA.

How far do you think the Trump administration will go in this regard? I also want to know whether Canada is working with its other allies to see how the Trump administration could be convinced to not make excessive cuts or how the potentially dramatic impact of these cuts could be mitigated.

[David Morrison]

As you've said, it is still early days and very challenging to know where much of this will come out. If you look at how policy positions have evolved from January 20 until now, and frankly, if you look at the President's willingness to roll back previous positions, it's very hard to say where the U.S. will come out on some of those key funding issues.

I tried to say in my opening remarks that we really don't know what “America first” will mean in terms of U.S. foreign policy. And the Trump administration has not said very much on U.S. development policy.

On the glass-half-full side of things, you've mentioned the cuts. The big cut has been to the UNFPA, and there are threats of large cuts to the multilateral system, principally the United Nations. On the other hand, the glass-half-full interpretation would be that President Trump seems to have appointed an active and forceful cabinet-level representative as his permanent representative at the United Nations.

So my overall answer would be that it's too soon to tell. In terms of the implications for Canada, the U.S. is a very large funder of the multilateral system. You've seen what happened on the Mexico City policy, and the spillover onto the UNFPA decision. The Netherlands has stepped up—this has to do with the funding of reproductive rights—and Canada participated in that shift. Neither Canada nor any other of the traditional funding countries would be in a position to step in if the United States went forward with all of its threatened funding cuts. I am aware that the UN in particular is watching this situation very closely.

But my answer is that it's too soon to tell.

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

Thank you.

You said that 72% of our exports go to the United States. It seems to me that, at one point, the proportion was over 80%. Can you send us the figures for about the last 20 years so that we can check? I want us to follow up on this issue after the meeting. I'm trying to ask the maximum number of questions in as little time as possible.

I want to follow up on your last comment. Do we have news regarding the appointment of the United States ambassador to Canada?

Also, you offered to talk about the statement following the last trilateral meeting. Regarding Canada and Mexico, you seemed to say that some items would remain on the agenda and that other items may disappear. Can you elaborate on this, if you have time?

[David Morrison]

Chair, I'll try to go very quickly.

Of course, we'll send the information you requested. Different statistics get batted around. It depends on whether you're talking about exports of goods alone, or goods and services, but we'll provide you with those statistics going back some time.

I have no new news on the appointment of a U.S. ambassador to Canada. There is a name, a woman from North Carolina—her name escapes me for the moment. We can come back to you on that. I don't believe a hearing has been scheduled.

On the trilateral agenda, as in my opening remarks, I tried to say that it's another area where it's too soon to tell. The key trilateral file is NAFTA. Depending on how NAFTA goes, I think much else will roll out. I did say that defence minister meetings are continuing. I think energy minister meetings are continuing, and there's a potential for a foreign ministers' meeting. On concrete files, work continues on a single-window approach to customs procedures. We're not quite to the point of “entered once, cleared twice”, but we're trying to get there, and that kind of trade facilitation measure continues.

I mentioned that borders and energy are two areas of continued co-operation between Canada and the United States, and that includes Mexico because it has recently liberalized its energy sector. That's an area where there's continued potential for trilateral co-operation.

On security, think of opioids; think of transnational crime, such as trafficking and human trafficking. On those kinds of issues, we can expect to see continued co-operation. Mexico and the United States in particular have deep and ongoing collaboration on security issues. There is the new U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Kelly. General Kelly's previous job was head of SOUTHCOM in Florida, looking after the military aspect of Central and South America. I think you'll see continued close collaboration between those two countries and Canada as well because of the spillover effect.

Then, finally, you will see regional co-operation continue for the same reason that I mentioned. Secretary Kelly is very interested in it. The northern triangle countries of Central America and the challenges they pose to the United States and to Canada in a wider regional security sense, continue. Canada, the United States, and Mexico will have an ongoing interest in collaborating on addressing those challenges.