International Trade Committee on March 31st, 2009

[David Bradley]

I think you're off to a very good start. You've given it a name and a purpose, which is something that people can grab onto.

I think there's plenty of brain power there, within the private sector and within the public sector, but it's important to get those people who live the border every day, from either perspective, to come up with the list of practical measures that can be undertaken to make the best of what is already a bad situation.

I was in Washington two weeks ago, talking to legislators from all parties. It was clear: anything that smacks of a reduction in security--forget it.

Again, part of the beauty of coming up with practical solutions is that they're not big political issues in the first place. If they can make a value-added contribution to improving the border, then perhaps we can move it up. Some were left over from the first smart border accord. They didn't get completely dealt with.

I don't think it will be a big effort for us to come up with solutions. However, it will be complex. It has to be complex; the border is not simple. The solutions will not be simple. They won't be the kinds of things that are necessarily of great interest to most people in the public. They won't catch headlines, but they will have an impact.

[Ron Lennox, Vice-President, Trade and Security, Canadian Trucking Alliance]

Some of these things are local, as David alluded to. I'll give you an example.

A process took place a couple of years ago--I think it was called “The 25% Challenge”--at Detroit-Windsor, the busiest border crossing in the world. It wasn't about big ideas and grand schemes for moving trade across the border. It was about things like better traffic management, better staffing at peak periods of time, better signage, and things like that. I think it was relatively successful. It involved the right people at the local level. It involved the truckers. It involved customs on both sides of the border. It involved the local police who managed the traffic.

I think some of these solutions can happen at the local level, right across the board.

[David Bradley]

That process worked very well and it was the only time it was ever used.

We were given the mandate as a trade community to improve throughput at Windsor by 25%. Now, initially there was a lot of toing and froing about metrics--how we count it and all that mumbo-jumbo--but at the end of the day, whatever we did, whether it was, I don't know, 22%, or 23.5%, or 26%, it worked.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if the committee could further discuss this later on or perhaps take that as our action plan on the agenda as we move toward our trip to Washington.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Witnesses, I want to thank you for your testimony. But with apologies to the other witnesses, I do want to direct my questioning to the Canadian Trucking Alliance. I really have no choice, as I represent a riding, greater Moncton, that has vast trucking interests, with Robert Irving's Midland Transport and Wes Armour's Armour Transportation Systems, and not far away, the McCains, so there is quite a culture of trucking and transportation where I come from.

So not surprisingly, the issue of the enhanced driver's licence and smart cards has in fact been a front-page story. The Province of New Brunswick recently decided against jumping into the fray with respect to the enhanced driver's licence and smart cards and is waiting for a regional approach, much as the maritime provinces have always acted in unison in some measure. HST, the harmonized sales tax, is a good example.

I guess what I'm asking you, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Lennox, first of all, is whether it's a doable and laudable goal to go to the enhanced driver's licence and smart cards. We know that the Province of Quebec has recently concluded an arrangement. British Columbia is testing it. Manitoba appears to be on the verge of coming out with it.

I'm struck, Mr. Bradley, by what you said, in what was perhaps the most quotable quote of the meeting, that you have dealt with so many ministers responsible for the border in your time, it makes you think no one is actually in charge.

When I see the patchwork quilt on this small issue—which should be resolvable—and I see the differing results and the fact that really only one province is ready to go, Manitoba, and I see the maritime provinces, for whom, as Mr. Keddy says, transportation across the border is incredibly important, it strikes me there's a role here for either your organization, that is, the private sector—and obviously I think you're going to tell me you're working on that to help the provinces—or maybe yet another department, such as the intergovernmental affairs secretariat, to help the Government of Canada facilitate the provinces concluding these deals.

I know that my friends from the Bloc would think that the Quebec government is stella inter pares, and probably better than other provincial governments. I think all governments in Canada are pretty well equal, and if Quebec can do it and Manitoba can do it, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia can do it.

So I guess the question is, have you canvassed your members and lobbied provincial governments on issues with respect to the privacy concerns regarding smart cards?

Also, the response from my provincial government has been such that if one applies for these, in most cases, the program is almost as onerous as applying for a passport. So why bother doing it? The only result is going to be a modest cost to the consumer. The average price is $30 to $50. A passport is, what, $87?

Second, have you impressed upon the federal government the need to educate, cajole, or help the provinces achieve this goal, which I think—and you can disagree with me on this, or expand on it—would be a small measure that would improve or facilitate the situation at the border?

[David Bradley]

First, let me say that one of the issues we have faced as an industry since 9/11 has been the proliferation of cards. If you want another quotable quote, what I used to say when I'd come before this committee, or whatnot, is that we're all going to need George Costanza's wallet—if you remember his filing system to keep all of these cards in.

Those who watch Seinfeld thought it was a good quip. Those who didn't, hadn't a clue what I was talking about.

What we have done—and I'm talking about the trucking side of things—is to try to move both governments, frankly, towards a one-card concept. We have focused on the FAST card, because in our business we require a security background check. That is part of the FAST card. It's also part of the hazmat program. It's part of the transportation worker ID program and it's part of WHTI. So the key for us, and what we argued for under WHTI, was that the FAST card be used as a citizenship document. The guy using it has already undergone the FBI/RCMP security check. Why make him do it again? Why make him get another piece of paper?

Happily, in this case, the process worked and the United States has accepted a FAST card as a proxy for a passport or other citizenship document. So in a sense we solved our problem. Now that's not to say that every truck driver has a FAST card; we think they should, but for whatever reason, some don't. So they're going to have to either have a passport or an enhanced driver's licence, as the case may be.

I hear your arguments about the enhanced driver's licence in terms of the cost, and why not just have a passport—although the Canadian passport is a little bulky and doesn't fit nicely into your pocket, and that sort of thing—but for the average traveller, I think that's where the real interest lies, that is, in the enhanced driver's licence. Our problem, or the problem for our people, has been solved, for the most part, through the FAST card program.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Is that it? Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Holder, welcome back.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

It's nice to be back. Thank you very much. Muchas gracias.

First, I'd like to thank our guests for being here today.

My dad was a truck driver, and he was probably the best economist I knew. While he didn't finish grade eight, he said that if you want to understand the state of an economy, follow the trucks. He said they were the best gauge of the status of the economy, because trucking is like the first responder and the first to feel the slowdown, and I think he had it right.

Mr. Bradley, I know we focused a lot on trucking today, and I think that's quite appropriate, but I thought your comments were exceptionally sobering in terms of no recovery in the freight volumes in the short or near term.

I did want to make one comment. In one of your more recent comments, you said we need to get “more than our fair share” as it relates to border trade. Actually, I think we do get more than our fair share in relation to the United States, but, frankly, as a Canadian, and as someone who exports, I'd like to get a whole lot more than our fair share. I never believe in fair share unless I'm winning really big.

I'm trying to get a sense of the practical approach we need to take, and I'm going to presume that, through some of the communications that you are providing to us, you are going to give us your thoughts—and I know we have through this assembly—on some of the focus points that you would like us to particularly focus on.

I've not done a trade mission to Washington, so as one of the newer members of this committee I would say I'm going at this with some open eyes, but I also understand, and I've heard the comments made from a number of committee members, the importance of having a really clear plan and having a focus.

Actually, Mr. Laurin, I think you made the comment about how important it is that we take the lead.

So I'd be interested, just as a broad comment, if there was one issue each of you had that we should take the lead on--from your perspective--in clear, precise terms. It can be a short sentence, by the way; we don't need to make them all long, and I don't mean that to be rude; I apologize, I didn't mean that as an offensive comment—

[An hon. member]

Because you want to be long.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Because I'm long, that's right.

But in a sentence, what's your number one point, the message that we need to take to Washington, and, presuming you can help us, who are some of the folks you think we should speak to when we're down there? What's your number one point, the message you'd like us to take to Washington?

[David Bradley]

I'd like you to go with a detailed plan, but that's obviously not going to happen right away. I think the one point I would like you to make with Washington, to emphasize to them that the way the border was supposed to work was supposed to be on a risk assessment basis, keeping in mind that 99.9% of the people, goods, companies, truck drivers that move across the border are safe and secure and pose no threat. What we were supposed to get out of this process was a more secure but also a more efficient border than we had on September 10, 2001, because we had problems before 9/11. We've gotten away from risk assessment into a situation where we almost check everyone, everything, all the time. That's impossible and it's grossly expensive to do that.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

If I may, I think I'd suggest there are a lot of very practical issues that are already on the table and can be picked up fairly easily. I think the most essential thing right now is to focus on the process and deal with an issue that's been raised here: who's in charge? We've got a complex bilateral agenda to deal with. It's going to go a lot better if there's a lead player with clear authority on both sides.

That can come from the security side, as it did immediately after 9/11, with the smart border agenda, where we had Minister Manley and Secretary Ridge developing a clear partnership, with clear authority. It can come from the commercial side, as we've seen with the evolution of the security and prosperity partnership. Originally, that kind of reported up through three different ministers to the leaders. In its latter years, it condensed down and the leaders gave clear authority to our industry minister and the commerce secretary, and his equivalent in Mexico. In other words, the SPP was being driven much more by what can we do to make our economies work, and that was where the authority resided. But one way or another, I think there needs to be a clearly established leadership from the top, but clear authority to an individual within each government to make things happen, with whatever agenda we choose to address.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Who do you think is in charge on the Canadian side, sir?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Again, within the SPP, it has been done with our industry minister as the lead player, the commerce secretary in the United States, and the equivalent minister in Mexico. That's a trilateral process.

As we are launching a new process, that's something we have to work out. If the key issues are going to be on the security side, maybe we have to talk about Minister Van Loan and Secretary Napolitano. That's one of the key decisions we have to make. The moment we get into two and three and five ministers, all with responsibilities, I think that's when you start to lose momentum very quickly.

I think you need leadership from the top, the President and the Prime Minister, but clear authority should be given to a lead person within each cabinet to drive whatever agenda we choose to pursue together on a bilateral basis.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

So that's your number one issue: leadership.

[Jean-Michel Laurin]

I agree with my colleagues that leadership is key to governments making any sort of significant progress on those issues.

For your upcoming visit to Washington, one key message I'd like you to take to legislators in the U.S. is that, really, we make things together. When you think about Canada and the United States, we're talking about integrated economies.

I'll tell you why this matters. There are two types of issues. One is the actual bottleneck at the border, the physical infrastructure and the need to have pre-clearance and other types of measures that will help facilitate trade at the border. What actually impacts Canada-U.S. trade are the new requirements that have been put in place to cross the border. So it's not the physical infrastructure but rather the compliance requirements that are required of companies.

A lot of those are directed toward imports. When U.S. law-makers and the American public look at these measures, they think they have to make sure, for example, that products that come into the U.S. are secure. They're thinking China. They're thinking overseas economies. But these measures always end up affecting Canada more than any other trading partner.

They understand that we do make things together and that there is a pretty good business case for better risk assessment of goods entering the U.S. But let's make sure that the safe stuff from Canada is facilitated and that we direct our energy toward things from other parts of the world. Those are really the goods that American consumers are more concerned with.

I think that would help tremendously in making progress on those issues we've been discussing today.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you.

Do I have one more moment, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Very short.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Boutziouvis, you made some comments around “buy America”, and you talked about a couple of the U.S. cabinet members who understand our border. I'm particularly concerned about “buy America”.

When you talk about these negotiations, if you want to negotiate you often have to base your argument on the other party's self-interest. I'm concerned about how well the Americans understand that relationship with us. To make our meetings in Washington more effective, I'm wondering if we need to provide the U.S. with better talking points. I heard some comments, which I think Mr. Laurin also made, about the amount of trade that various states do with us.

From the standpoint of their self-interest, do we need to provide them with their education? Left to their own interests, I'm very concerned about how they will view us and whether we'll get our fair attention.

[Sam Boutziouvis]

I'll let my three colleagues, who have been primary speakers, comment. But I can certainly say you have raised a very important point. This is a new team in Washington, and they have yet to put in place their undersecretaries. There's a new cabinet and a new President.

We have heard time and again that Canadians need to go down there and educate, educate, and communicate. You need to bring up the issues again. You need to re-establish the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship, from the Canadian perspective, with our U.S. counterparts. You need to tell them exactly, as Mr. Laurin did in great detail this morning, where we trade, who we trade with, and where the number one trading partners are. You have to keep doing it again and again, every two years, every four years--all the time. We need to continue to communicate.

On “buy America”, I totally agree with my colleague, David Stewart-Patterson. We not only directly provided advocacy in the United States, we collaborated with any other business group that would hear us on the message that this would be counterproductive; increased protectionism does not protect anybody.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Again I'd reinforce the fact. The American business community I think is a very strong ally of ours in this one because they understand the extent to which their commercial interests depend on a smooth flow of goods and people across our shared border. We've been able to work very effectively with our counterparts on the trilateral agenda and on the bilateral agenda, and obviously when we're taking on measures that restrict trade, they are very powerful allies when it comes to dealing with folks on Capitol Hill. But as my colleague said, given the nature of their political system and the changeover in the senior ranks of their departments every time there's a new administration, Canada can never let up in its communication efforts.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Stewart-Patterson.