International Trade Committee on March 12th, 2009

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our witnesses. It's a very interesting discussion.

I've got two quick questions. The first is really a comment. I appreciate your comments on the authorities at the border. We all cross the border a fair amount, and I think “Welcome to Canada” would be a welcome addition, or even “Welcome home”. That's an extremely good point, and it just takes some of that edge off crossing the border. We've all been held up at the border at some time or another, a needless delay of an hour and a half or two hours sometimes. The border gains nothing except having a client who says this is the worst part of his trip the next time he comes to the border. So I think that's a great idea.

You spoke about integration of the border authorities. I've always been amazed at the amount of infrastructure we have on the border. There are two things: the infrastructure on the border and the fact that we don't have a dedicated fast lane. At most border crossings, even when we're crossing as members of Parliament with the green passport, there's no dedicated lane you can move through more quickly. So how would you suggest doing that? How do other countries dedicate their resources, for instance in Europe and other countries where you have individuals and separate jurisdictions? No country's sovereignty is threatened, but they join forces at the border.

[Christopher Jones, Vice-President, Public Affairs, Tourism Industry Association of Canada]

Maybe I could take that one, having lived overseas in Europe for a few years.

The Schengen Accord governs the movement of people--

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Yes, very interesting, and they were shooting at one another 60 years ago.

[Christopher Jones]

Yes, and they have a multiplicity of languages, and the fact that they can make that work is quite a testament to joint cooperation.

I think it's probably worth looking at the concept that Michael Kergin, the former Canadian ambassador to Washington, advanced a couple of months ago in the National Post about the idea of a permanent joint border commission. It might in the first instance be limited to things like packaging requirements and freight and documentation requirements. It wouldn't be too expansive, but it might simplify some of the areas where at the moment Canada seems to me to be somewhat subject to arbitrary American or fairly sudden.... You know, we have the smart border accord, which was joint, but since then we've had WHTI, we've had the APHIS, which is the agricultural inspection fee. A number of these things hit us from out of left field.

I think Kergin's point is that if you have some kind of jointly staffed entity, yes, there would be some secession of sovereignty, and the Americans might be uncomfortable about that, but ultimately I think that may be the way to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ed.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thanks very much.

I'd like to thank our guests for coming today.

I come from the city of London, Ontario, and we're within two hours of four border points, so to us this whole issue of border crossing and access is very important. Because London is a major transportation hub, this is a very crucial issue. So when we talk about border thickening—and we've all experienced that—it causes me some concern.

Most recently, we had some bureaucrats who spoke about the number of Canadians who have passports and the number of Americans. Mr. Williams, it was interesting to hear your stat, that some 53% of Canadians have passports. I think the number we heard the other day was higher than that.

I'm somewhat concerned that you featured the 2010 Olympics as a showcase for Canada for a lot of reasons. If anything, part of it is post-9/11, to say there's a great relationship with a great neighbour, and Americans come take a peak--and the rest of the world, of course. But what I'm not sure of is this. We know new border requirements come into effect as of June 2009. You've indicated the concern about delaying it would only be that the Americans then say that's just one more delay and they can always keep delaying. But is there any sense, from your perspective, that there may be some merit—noting that we've already had one delay—of getting us at least past the 2010 Olympics? Is there an advantage to Canada for that?

While I've heard we can have one-day passes, I don't know what good that is if you've got a two- or three-day event or a series of events you're trying to attend, and you can't see Vancouver in a day, so I'm mindful of the difference between that and an event package. Would you imagine there's some benefit in our trying to negotiate an extension past the 2010 Olympics for the sake of tourism and relationships?

[Randy Williams]

Yes, there are certainly extenuating circumstances. We have a new administration in the U.S., there is a global recession, and there's certainly evidence that there aren't enough holders of the required documentation. Those three factors would say that, yes, we should delay.

There may be a third option here. Rather than delay for another year or implement on June 1 hard and fast, there may be an agreement to transition. Certainly put in the rules, but allow for some kind of freedom for people who have proven their identity but don't have a passport or required document. At least give them a free pass, so a transitioning might occur. And there's softening. They did that, I think, when the air went in; they allowed for some exceptions to occur as people became more aware. I think that option might also be looked at.

But I would agree, considering the other factors, maybe a year's delay would be the best right now. The economy is so dire that we can't afford to turn away export dollars and people spending money in our country and employing our people.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

And particularly with the 80-cent dollar right now, it's a more attractive time.

I'm not sure our bureaucrats are of the same view. I'm not 100% certain on that, but I got the feeling that June 2009 was the line-in-the-sand point. I'm sure you communicate the need to do that to them and to other interested parties.

The other thing I want to respond to, Mr. Williams, is a comment you made. I like the comment “Welcome to Canada”, but as I recall, because I do travel between Canada and the United States fairly often, I see a “Welcome to Canada” sign. And maybe because Londoners are nicer, I'm not sure, but when I cross I haven't sensed that hostility—and perhaps it's there—but I have certainly experienced delays. I'm one of those who has a NEXUS card, so that works exceptionally well.

But you made a comment, and I made a note of it, “gun in the holster”, in terms of the concern about our border guards having guns. Most of the border guards I see are sitting in their booths. You wouldn't even know, unless for any reason they came out and decided to do an inspection. I sincerely hope that's not the mindset of your membership, that there's a paranoia about our border guards having guns. Obviously that's been implemented for very good and reasonable security reasons. I hope when you made that comment you weren't thinking that somehow that made us more hostile or somehow less engaging. We may well have other issues, but I don't think it's because we've got guns to protect the security of our border staff. I wonder if you might comment on that.

[Randy Williams]

The comment on the guns is only concerning the perception it gives to travellers. Certainly it's not that we're implying we're a more hostile nation. It's that the perception has changed. We had unarmed customs officers in the past; now we have armed ones. The perception of the traveller is what I'm speaking about.

We've all visited countries in which we have seen armed people at airports and other parts of the destination, and it has an impact on us. I've talked to travellers before who have talked about the number of visible armed people around. It is a perception that this is an issue for travellers.

We have, rightfully I think, made the decision to arm our customs officers. That's fine. My concern is what perception it gives to travellers. All I'm asking is that we balance it with a welcome to Canada. A sign, in my view, is not a welcome to Canada. It may say it, but it doesn't give that impression.

Right now, when we go through lines—I have a NEXUS card, but sometimes I'll go through a line because I'm travelling with someone who doesn't have a NEXUS card—it's merely a glance or a wave forward that we see. I would rather see our people at the border saying welcome to Canada, as a way of introducing the discussion.

I think it's a simple measure, and it helps to offset the effect of the holster.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Am I allowed to ask a question to our other guests?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We'll have to make it the next round.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you.

[Christopher Jones]

I have a point about the receptivity Canada shows to foreigners. It has to do with the customs halls in Canadian airports. There is a consensus out there that many of these new airports are a bit of a barren environment: there aren't enough posters of Canada, not necessarily enough shots of the local scenery and environment. We would like to see more of that, would like to see the customs halls a little more adorned, with inviting, friendly features and posters to do with.... It sounds like a small point, but many other countries do it, and we don't do it that well here.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I have some extra Anne of Green Gables posters I can send you, if you like.

Quickly, then, if I may, Ms. George....

I apologize; I'm not trying to be facetious.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You're going to have to wait until the next round; I'm sorry.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you. I'll do it next round, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have some brief questions. My colleague John Cannis also wants to ask some questions.

Obviously, some of the concerns we have raised and that people have generally are about the border and what's going to happen, whether we're doing everything possible to make the border as friendly as possible. I think it's very important. We also need to have people on staff who are friendly.

Sometimes when I go through the border, I find—on both sides, both going to the U.S. and even coming back home—that there isn't the friendliness there could be. This is a bit strange, given that in Europe—I also have European citizenship, for I was born in Portugal—there are no borders. Governments of all political stripes, beyond the left and the right, have done everything they can to integrate that market and make it very free-flowing for people.

We seem to be going in almost the opposite direction here with one of the closest trading partners we have in the world—historically, and in terms of raw numbers, and everything else. It is a little staggering that we seem to be going back rather than going forward. It's one of the reasons we have raised, even here in this committee, the question whether the government is doing everything possible to delay this proposal that's coming forward. The passport.... All of us are very much concerned.

One thing that also needs to be raised—it hasn't been, and I think it's an important issue that you may want to comment on—has to do with the flow of goods across the borders and whether we are providing enough access points. Windsor was very much concerned that the borders were taking too long to get their goods across. There has been talk for the longest time on the Canadian side about also getting a tunnel towards...passage of the goods and trucks, and so forth.

I'm not sure why there are such long debates, given the economic situation. We want to get things moving. This is vital to our national interest, our economic interest. Anything you can do to encourage government to move more quickly would be great. We'll also do what we can for our part. It's staggering, knowing how important the relationship is on every front, that we could be dragging our feet. I find it quite appalling. It affects not just people down in Windsor; it affects every one of us across this country.

I wonder whether you could comment on that.

[Randy Williams]

I agree 100%.

[Shirley-Ann George]

You raise a very important point, and that is that our ability to take on any new, large infrastructure projects in Canada is fundamentally broken. It takes years and years to get approval.

That doesn't mean we should be in any way undermining the needed reviews that must take place for such important things as environmental assessment, but the process right now simply isn't working. Whether it be in Windsor for a new bridge, for a new tunnel, for a pipeline—whatever it is—it's a very serious problem that needs to be fixed.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Responding to my good friend Mr. Holder, I'd like to think that we have great and wonderful people in Toronto and Scarborough as well, friendly faces. But the feedback I've heard is that it's not the presence or the visibility of a pistol, for example, but more the type of comments that come from that person, who's there to serve and verbally welcome to Canada.

If I may comment on this, it's the type of attitude—and I underline that, attitude—and the line of questioning, to the point that people I was travelling with told the border services individual: if you don't like your job, please go and find another job. That's how miserable.... It must be stressful, Mr. Chairman; I don't know. Certainly I encourage whatever we can do.

Let me ask whether the GST rebate for tourists that was in place had any impact. That's one of the questions, if you can comment on it.

Second, you talked about new construction scanning technology. I know that after we did the review in the committee on industry, post-9/11, there was a great investment made in equipment—scanners, new technology, etc.—that was in the billions of dollars. Have we outgrown that now, or have those proposals not been fully implemented?

With respect to new construction, I want to close off with what my colleague Mr. Silva said, and Windsor's an example: for years there's a back-and-forth question of jurisdictional responsibility. What can we do, beyond being there as we have been collectively? And what is it that you have been doing and can be doing, and what is it that you could suggest to us we can do collectively? We know there's been talk, action, this new mayor, that new representative, etc., which is really one of the problems. Moneys have been invested, feasibility studies have been done, and the bar changes every so many years, etc.

Give us any kind of feedback on that, if you will, please.

[Shirley-Ann George]

I don't know that I can go into a great deal of detail on what can be done to move this forward, but I am hopeful that from the work underway in the government right now to figure out how to speed up funding for the infrastructure projects, there might be some lessons learned on how to speed up other projects.

Concerning the new crossing in Windsor, there's so much political investment in all the different positions that it's very difficult to move forward. We're very concerned that even now we could end up with legal cases that could delay the bridge for years and years longer again. We simply cannot compete on a global basis with the rising emerging nations that have a lower cost structure than ours, if we cannot put in place the kind of infrastructure that we need to be globally competitive.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Can the GST help us, if we bring the program back, Mr. Williams?

[Randy Williams]

On the GST rebate.... Don't get me going. I think the GST visitor rebate program would be a good one to re-invest in. It's another one of those things that send a message. All of these things in their totality add up to a visitor experience. All of them seem small, whether it's a welcome to Canada message or whatever, but all of us know that when we travel, it's all of the collective little things that make up the experience.

The visitor rebate program should be put back in place to let people know that we're pleased they've come here. These are export dollars they're spending, and every other export has the GST rebated, back to the end customer; we should have it as well.