International Trade Committee on May 10th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Menzies, that's a very interesting point, but it's not completely relevant to the issue we are dealing with today. Would you connect future questions and comments to the issue we are dealing with today?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. André and I are both on record as bringing something up.

I will defer to my colleagues for the second part of the questioning.

I do have one quick question, if I can throw one in. When we're talking about harmonization, and, Mr. Chair, you may call this irrelevant too, one thing we fail to recognize, and a subject on which there have been some questions in the House of Commons just recently, is chemical harmonization, the suggestion that to facilitate the free flow of trade—that is, in the agrifood sector—we may be reducing our standards to meet those of the U.S. I've been involved in this for many years in a former life. In fact, the Americans have higher food standards in some cases than we have.

I would just like a quick comment on this—that harmonization of standards is not a bad thing.

[William Crosbie]

One of the key principles we're trying to address in the SPP is not whether the standards are higher or lower, because individual governments make that decision, but whether or not, when there are different standards, the reasons for those differences are ones that governments have thought through.

You have three individual governments producing regulations in a myriad of areas. What we want to ask ourselves is whether, as we produce those individual regulations, we have thought through whether or not the regulations help the people who are producing things in North America to continue to produce them and exchange them, so that at least you would turn your mind as a government to whether or not a different set of regulations needs to be different.

There may well be reasons why they need to be different, due to geography, different values, etc., but the differences may well not be ones that governments have actually thought about or considered, in terms of developing their individual national regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have about a minute, Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation—an excellent presentation.

I just wanted to highlight some of the things you said, because I think they really capture the essence of the SPP.

One of the things you stated that I want to highlight is the fact that Canada is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, but our prosperity depends, on the most part, on access to international markets. So international trade is a win situation for Canada.

You noted that $2 billion is traded almost each day between Canada and the U.S. It's important to know that as well. Again, that contributes to Canada's prosperity.

Another key thing that you brought out is that the SPP is not intended to replace NAFTA; it's not intended to serve as an alternative to existing trade negotiation mechanisms. We've heard people call it a treaty—it's not a treaty—and a bunch of other very definitive terms, and it's none of those. So I appreciate you having brought those points out.

We've heard from many witnesses that there are very secretive things going on, that the discussions going on are not public, the information is not public, that there's an agenda here that we don't see but they see. I'm wondering how you respond to that.

I'm encouraged. I see this as a very positive initiative to encourage trade, which is good for Canada. It's good for our citizens, it's good for our companies, for our industry, for our prosperity. And then we have a lot of speculation—we discussed this at the last meeting—and a lot of what I said, this feeling that things are hidden, not well-known, secret agendas, etc. How do you comment on that?

I'll ask Mr. Beaudoin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Lemieux, your time is up.

Could you give about a 20-second answer, please, Mr. Beaudoin?

[Alain Beaudoin]

Thank you.

To answer your question, all the work plans, all the initiatives, are part of the website that we talked about. The three countries have respective websites. We have links to these websites on our own websites for the Government of Canada. The NACC recommendations have been made public, as we stated. Ministers met in February—this was a public meeting—and we're trying to be as transparent and as accountable as possible. As I said, we welcome input, advice, from various stakeholders, and the various working groups are responsible for working with their respective stakeholders to try to identify issues that are of interest to increase competitiveness, increase quality of life, and that's why we need their input.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies and Mr. Lemieux.

We will now go to the New Democrats, to Mr. Julian, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming forward. I appreciate having the government representatives here.

This is the first set of hearings that we're having on the SPP, but this committee will be coming back to the issue, we certainly hope, because things haven't gone well for the government. They've had to separate civil society and government representatives because the rebuttals from civil society representatives have meant that it has been difficult for the government to get its point of view across. Also, we see that there are no televised hearings today because the government didn't want to get these issues out in the public mind—

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair. Could you just clarify that the room wasn't available?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, just to clarify, the reason this meeting—

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

It's totally inaccurate and false. I want a retraction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

—is not televised is because the clerk was unable to find a room where we could have the meeting televised.

That's just to correct you on that, Mr. Julian. Go ahead with the rest, and that won't come from your time, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

Let's come back to the issue of prosperity, because you've said—and other government representatives have said the same thing—that's what it's all about. Right? And we've seen the Statistics Canada studies that clearly indicate that 80% of Canadian families have actually seen a fall in real income since 1989, since the signing of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

Now from another study this week, for Ontario—and hopefully Ontario MPs would take note of this—90% of Ontario families with children under 18 have seen a fall in real income since 1989; 90%. It ranges from $5,000, in constant dollars, to $9,000, depending on the income level. So when people say that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA have profited the top 20% or top 10% and that corporate CEOs and corporate lawyers are richer than ever before, it's backed by study after study.

Now, the Conservatives will throw out some figures that they kind of make up on the end of a napkin, but basically the reality is that most Canadian families are poorer since 1989.

I have two questions for you. As part of the strategy overall, trade strategy, industry strategy, why are you not addressing this growing prosperity gulf that is happening in Canada? Secondly, why do you believe more of the same medicine will lead us somehow into prosperity, when the same medicine, through the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA, has led, very clearly, to most Canadian families being poorer and having less money to spend?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Crosbie.

[William Crosbie]

Mr. Julian, I'm not a statistician. I'm not very good at analyzing figures. I know that the last time I appeared, my colleague, Tony Burger, came along with me. Happily, Tony is pretty good at analyzing figures, and I know he addressed this question with you to some extent.

My own experience is that in analyzing gross figures such as that there are many different interpretations that can be brought to bear, both in terms of what story the figures tell you and also in terms of understanding how you explain the figures themselves. We did address it with Mr. Burger, and I'm sure he'd be happy to come back, because he does deal much more with the macroeconomic context.

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

Thank you for that.

He did admit—and it was the first time the government has admitted this—to the fact that Canadian families at the poorer income levels are actually getting poorer. Now, he said he hoped that would address itself. My concern, and I'll complete the point on that note, is that more of the same medicine is not going to lead to more prosperity; it's going to lead to an even larger prosperity gulf as our manufacturing capacity erodes.

I'd like to continue on the issue of pesticides; Mr. Bains mentioned it earlier. We have a decision by the government to allow for greater pesticide residue in Canadian food. This is a food safety issue. There have been studies done. The 2006 study in the Annals of Neurology found that even low exposure to pesticides increases the risk of contracting Parkinson's disease by 70%. What the government is doing, in a very clear and unabashed way, by saying they want to harmonize or remove that trade irritant of more effective food safety regulations, is actually putting Canadians' health at risk.

The United States has the weakest pesticide rules in the industrialized world. Why would it be in Canada's interest to lower our food safety regulations, to actually put Canadians' health in jeopardy, so that we can in some way harmonize our regulations with lower American standards?

[Alain Beaudoin]

I'm not an expert in terms of pesticide residue limits, but the intent is not to lower standards. Minister Clement made a statement that appeared today. He quoted that no changes will be made unless a scientific risk assessment says it is safe to make the changes. Indeed, if there is any harmonization, it would be at the highest standards that would protect the health and safety of Canadians when it comes to pesticide management.

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

We know that 90% of American standards, when it comes to pesticides, are lower than Canadian standards. The SPP, the security and prosperity partnership, in a 2006 report identified stricter residue limits as barriers to trade. You understand the dysfunction here. We have government pushing ahead with an agenda that essentially puts Canadians' health and food safety at risk, and the only justification for doing that is to eliminate a so-called barrier to trade.

My concern, of course, and the concern of many Canadians is that we're accepting lower standards in a whole range of areas—lower standards for pharmaceutical testing, lower standards for food safety, lower standards for air safety—and the only justification seems to be that it's the SPP, that we have to adopt American standards, otherwise it's a barrier to trade.

Can you name one area where higher Canadian standards are being accepted through the SPP process?

[William Crosbie]

All three governments have said that in terms of the SPP process the intention is not in any way to lower the health and safety standards we have in our regulations and in the policies we implement. Yes, as I mentioned earlier, part of the process of the SPP is to identify, when there are differences in standards, if those differences are ones that have been thought through, and why there are differences.

Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans are very similar in so many ways. Is it always necessary, when it gets to labelling on a bottle of medicine, that we need to have a different label on the bottle of medicine? It doesn't take away from the health ministry, in the case of pesticides, the responsibility to ensure that where they set up the standards for Canadians, they meet the highest standards that they think are appropriate for Canadians. But they are being asked to talk to the Americans and Mexicans so that when there is a difference between the way we've set up our standards, and a difference between the Mexicans and the Americans, we have considered whether or not that difference is something we need to maintain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Beaudoin, go ahead, please.

[Alain Beaudoin]

These conversations and these decisions are always based on scientific evidence. You have scientists cooperating in terms of what is the case for an issue, for example, and you have collaboration taking place in terms of best practices and methodology. They will keep what it is they need to know and how they can have access to that type of science they need in order to make their decisions. The decisions are the purview of sovereign nations. Each country will make a decision as to what they intend to do.

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

The science indicates that more pesticide residue increases health risks to Canadians. The science indicates that when you study American regulation of pesticides, they are the worst and weakest regulations in the western world. For the government to move along that line of harmonizing necessarily means they're putting Canadians' health in jeopardy; there is absolutely no other explanation, and the only reason they give for putting Canadians' health at risk is to simply eliminate a trade irritant.

You understand why Canadians are suspicious of this whole agenda: number one, it's not done in public; number two, it has very clear and dramatic impacts on things Canadians hold dear—the ability to put their family on an aircraft and believe that they'll be safe, the ability to take food from the supermarket and think that eating that food will be safe. There is no justification beyond eliminating barriers to trade.

I'll finish with the final question, which is the whole democratic aspect of this. The government has refused to bring this issue before the House of Commons. These working groups are not taking place with any public consultation—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, I've allowed you two minutes over time already. You will have to hold off on that question until next time.

We'll go to the second round.

Mr. Maloney is next, for about three minutes. We're going to shorten it up a bit; hopefully we can get right around.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Beaudoin, in your introductory remarks you referenced the leaders of the NACC nations agreeing to create the North American Competitiveness Council. There's reference to a report they did, which was given to the ministers and released publicly. It was a report dealing with three areas of recommendations.

What I'm concerned with is border crossing facilitation. Are you in a position to tell us what those recommendations were regarding border crossing facilitation?