International Trade Committee on April 24th, 2007

[William Crosbie]

The SPP is not designed to track an overall reduction in barriers or regulations or indeed an increase in barriers or regulations. It's designed to be a cooperative process in which government officials who are experts in particular fields can examine the ways in which we might together do something to achieve a shared goal that perhaps wouldn't happen if we didn't talk to one another.

For example, take an area like regulation, which could have health regulation as an objective or environmental regulation as an objective. One thing we'd like to ensure when we create those regulations is the way in which we do it, so that the regulation does not reduce the competitiveness of operating in North America.

For example, if you're going to require different label sizes on a product, the U.S. has its own requirements, as do we and as does Mexico. Each government has prepared its own particular regulations on the size of the lettering and what has to be in it. In and of itself, those are good things to do, but they can create a barrier or a cost to somebody who wants to produce a product for the three markets. If we could find a way to ensure that the regulations on labeling were somehow consistent so that a business person operating in either one of the three countries could more easily conform to those regulations, it would no longer become a barrier to the cost of operating in North America.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

It always goes one way. If Canada chose to have GM food labeling, we would not have Foreign Affairs and International Trade pushing the United States to adopt GM food labelling for their product lines.

But I'll come back to my question. Mr. Gill actually laid out a whole variety of accomplishments in terms of the SPP, if you want to consider them that. There is obviously a tracking process. You're aware of what is going on, what is being discussed, and what the regulatory changes or deregulation are. My question is, how is this tracked through the ministry?

[William Crosbie]

As I mentioned at the outset, our department has a role to play in terms of the communications side of the SPP. In terms of ensuring what we're doing, the SPP is situated within the context of our relationship with our two partners. Two other ministries have the leads on the specific pillars, but if you want to know how we track this, I'd encourage you to go to the website the Government of Canada operates under our auspices. It lists the specific working groups, what they're trying to achieve, and what the status is for the result they're trying to achieve. Similarly, if you look at the material that was produced at the time of the February ministerial, it also looks at the specific work and results that have been achieved.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

What it doesn't provide are those specific regulatory changes, or deregulation. That is not provided there. That's why I'm wondering, in terms of the overall tracking, going beyond what is publicly available, which is vague, to say the least, where the tracking mechanism is on the details.

[Lee Gill]

Perhaps I could interject here just for a second.

Now, I'm not the expert on this, but we do have within our department a group headed by a director general that actually does cover off the SPP issues and affairs. He and his staff, I can assure you, track things in great detail. For this meeting alone, they gave me 11 questions and possible answers to them with respect to SPP. They're the ones I got that information from.

Although I can't state it for a fact, I would imagine it's exactly the same in the other departments that are involved in the process, such as Natural Resources, obviously. I do know that at Industry Canada we do have a significant group that is tracking everything with respect to us.

[William Crosbie]

If someone was interested in one of the working groups, in a particular result that they're seeking to achieve, the lead department is identified, and that department remains responsible for any of the changes Canada might want to make. The SPP itself is not the mechanism that makes those changes; it's the individual departments that have the responsibility in that policy area.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, I understand that, and you've made that very clear. And that's all—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, your time is up. You've had, in fact, over 10 minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'm just that kind of guy.

We do only have five minutes left, and I would like to ask some questions on behalf of the committee.

We are currently going through our report. We've already tabled the recommendations in the House as a separate report, but now we'll be including the background information with the recommendations and tabling a new report entitled “Ten Steps to a Better Trade Policy”. I would like to read to you the last recommendation, because you, Mr. Burger, in fact, were one of the two witnesses who, in response to a question from Mr. Julian, made comments on the prosperity gap. This recommendation has been included in the report.

I'll just read this to you. Mr. Burger, I would like you to comment on what you meant when you were referring to the prosperity gap, on how you would define prosperity gap, and on whether you believe this recommendation reflects your comments.

Do you have the recommendation in front of you, Mr. Burger?

[Anthony Burger]

Yes I do, Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Then I won't read it. Perhaps you would just like to comment on how you were defining prosperity gap, as well as you can remember, in response to Mr. Julian's question.

[Anthony Burger]

I'm not sure that I'm competent to answer whether this is an appropriate recommendation of the committee. I can comment, as I mentioned in my response to Mr. Julian, on facts rather than on the policies that should or should not be adopted by the government in order to respond to those facts.

I don't quite know what closing the prosperity gap means, unless it means that families in a particular subgroup should have the income level they had before or the share of total income they had before. The concern is really a policy one for government rather than something for a public servant to comment on.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No, I was just asking about your testimony. You may not remember it. I understand that, Mr. Burger. You haven't been given a heads-up on this. You were one of the two witnesses who did comment in response to a question from Mr. Julian. I was only asking about your comment. I hope I wasn't asking you to comment on the recommendation and whether you would support it or not. That's not what I intended to do.

[Anthony Burger]

Okay, what I would say is that according to the statistics that are available from Statistics Canada, the real household income of families has been recovering for those who experienced a decline in income in the early nineties. It has been recovering since 1997. My anticipation is that this process of recovery and movement into positive territory will be seen in the statistics for 2005, which will be released later this year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So in fact, the lower-income level group has been improving steadily. We don't have the information for 2007, obviously, or 2006, but you said that 2005 will be released fairly soon and that you anticipate the trend of improvement will increase or will continue.

[Anthony Burger]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. The committee will be dealing with this, and I just wanted to ask about that.

I would like to thank you very much, gentlemen. Our time is up. I do appreciate very much your input here. You demonstrate, gentlemen, something that certainly parliamentarians know and that I think Canadians know, which is that we have an excellent public service in this country. And I thank you very much for the service you provide.

We will take a couple of minutes now to go in camera to go over the report and to deal with the travel issues.

[Proceedings continue in camera]