International Trade Committee on March 12th, 2009

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'll add a comment to that. I think it's human nature, for whatever reason, to react to somebody in a position of authority, whether it's going through a RIDE program or whatever. There's always that apprehension. It's a natural thing for a person to want to stiffen up because you're going through there.

Your point is well taken. I cross the border a bit, and I find most of them official and for the most part courteous. There have been exceptions, not just on our side but probably more so on the American side, and it's out there.

I'll come back to the $12 billion deficit you talked about. We can have as beautiful a summer as anybody, although last summer certainly was not a good example, so what percentage of that $12 billion deficit is for what we call the “snowbirds” who go away in winter? As they say, we have a pretty cold climate in the winter, and it's natural for people to want to get away. What percentage of that deficit would be covered there?

[Randy Williams]

There's another good reason to pick up the Turks and Caicos.

We had snowbirds in 2002 when we had a travel deficit of $1.5 billion. You'll see this around the world: a northern hemisphere country always tends to have a travel deficit. It's not just a Canadian phenomenon; it exists in other countries as well.

We expect to have a travel trade deficit—that means Canadians spending more money outside the country than visitors spend in the country. But to be ballooning every year—for the last six years we have continually added another $1 billion or $2 billion to our travel deficit, with the same number of snowbirds—is startling. Things such as the GST rebate, the welcoming at the border, the border thickening, the relationship with the United States—all of these things—have compounded to hurt Canada with its number one visitor market, the U.S.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

If I have any time left, could Mr. Keddy or Mr. Holder have a question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think we're going to have to wrap it up.

We'll have one more question from Mr. Brison. There are a couple of points of committee business that we have to attend to in this hour. With the indulgence of the committee I'm going to ask Mr. Brison for a brief question, and then we'll have to move on.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

George's point is an important one involving sub-national protectionism in the U.S. and the vulnerability we have as a country. I would urge the government members to make sure that in our discussions with the provinces this is addressed.

From your organization's perspective, it should be one of your recommendations that this become a fed-prov discussion issue, because it's one of our biggest vulnerabilities. Most of the stimulus money is going to be spent by state-level governments. That vulnerability, which is exclusive to us and not to most of the U.S. trading partners, is a real one.

As a quick point both on the WHTI, the western hemisphere travel initiative, and on country of origin labelling, they're both coming down the track at us. I thought the idea that Mr. Williams had of a “third way” approach with WHTI is an interesting one.

We're going to be in Washington in a few weeks, in April; we're looking at going to Washington to meet with the legislators. It would be very helpful that we have, from both your organizations, some specific and practical recommendations—you could even vet them with some of your U.S. counterparts, as an example, and particularly in border states, for instance, on the tourism side—that we could present to U.S. legislators as options that could make this situation more palatable to our mutual interests and still be realistic. I know this is a fairly significant demand, because it involves your counterparts talking to their legislators to try to find out what might work and doing some of the groundwork.

If we can go down there with a very focused message and a very specific ask, so that rather than simply saying “don't do this” we can say “if you do this, then give us a year in which there's flexibility, in order to adjust to it”, or something.... We need a very practical approach to what is a very critical issue with immediate effects upon us. I'm sure that for Mr. Julian from British Columbia, with the Olympics coming, and for all of us with our trade issues, particularly people with border towns in their ridings, this is a major issue that's coming at us. We need a practical approach that we can market and lobby for with our counterparts in the U.S.

I don't think we can give up on this. I don't think it's too far gone, if we take a practical “third way” type of approach. Can you please provide us, both your organizations, with some very practical recommendations?

[Christopher Jones]

Mr. Brison, thanks. I think we can undertake to do that. It's a very good suggestion, and there are some things we could do to mitigate it.

May I just mention—I didn't make the point and I agree—that Diane Ablonczy has been an excellent representative of our interests and a real stalwart champion of tourism at the cabinet table, and that was seen in the last budget.

There's one issue, though, that's outstanding, which you may not know about. It's the subject of several letters that have beenwritten to the CBSA minister. It's the cost recovery policy for the second Amtrak train that is going to be coming into Vancouver—this would be in the run-up to the Olympics. The existing train does not pay a fee for its CBSA inspection services. Amtrak and other agencies in the U.S. government are concerned that the proposal to apply a cost-recovery fee will deter people from using the train and hence contribute to congestion at the border. They would like to see that second train grandfathered.

It's been the subject of some correspondence. We would like to see an effort to have that second Amtrak train grandfathered, so that more people end up using that service.

[Randy Williams]

We know of six letters that have been written to CBSA on this issue. Those letters date back at least three or four months, and we haven't received a reply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ms. George.

[Shirley-Ann George]

Mr. Chair, if you would allow me, I'll put forward one additional idea before we close off today. We talked about the importance of the NEXUS cards. Unfortunately they're viewed as a card for crossing between Canada and the United States. Even people who have them sometimes don't understand that they can also use them when entering Canada from any country.

There is, I think, an opportunity for us to greatly enhance the benefit of that program by considering using the NEXUS card for a fast lane at the airport. We have all gotten into the line where there are 60 or 80 people queueing up to go through security. If, in fact, people with NEXUS cards could use a faster lane, it would encourage domestic travellers to get the card as well, and I think that would greatly enhance the benefits and the rationale for paying the required dollars for that card.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's a very good suggestion. As a matter of fact, I just sent a BlackBerry message to my office saying “Get me the application for the NEXUS card”. And we should probably do it for the committee.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

They do background checks, Mr. Chairman.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I don't know whether this is a point of order or a point of clarification, but quickly on that point to you—this may not help you—I tried to use my NEXUS card at the Detroit airport four weeks ago, and the woman did not even know what it was. So there's a lot of education that has to be done.

[A voice]

On both sides of the border.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It's a very good point, and I think a good point to wrap up on—not just the specific point, but also the general point that Mr. Brison just raised. That is, that we are intending to visit Washington soon. I would very much appreciate your giving us some concise points. I think it is the consensus of the committee that we would like to proceed to Washington as a unified group, with a bit of a shopping list or recommendations or priorities that we can sell together to our American counterparts. Your input would be most helpful in that regard.

With that, I'm going to take about a two-minute break here while we bid adieu to our witnesses. Then I'd like you to return. I have a couple of housekeeping items we need to take care of.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Gentlemen, we're going to reconvene here.

I'd like to quickly deal with two items of the agenda. We just have a couple of minutes here; I don't think it's going to take long.

You will all see in front of you two items. One is a request from the Senate of the Republic of Colombia, from Jorge Robledo, who is a senator there, who has asked to appear before the committee. The other is a routine motion to approve a budget for our study of chapter 11, which we agreed to last week. This is a routine thing. The clerk has proposed a maximum of $16,000 for witness travel expenses, but I don't think it's going to be that high.

In any event, let's do the first one first.

Mr. Julian, do you have a motion?

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. It hasn't been orchestrated at all.

I move that we authorize up to $16,300 for witnesses on the chapter 11 study. But I agree with you that it probably is not going to take that full amount.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I don't think there's any debate required. Does anybody have any comments?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

That was unanimous.

Secondly, we have a request from a senator of the Republic of Colombia who is attending Canadian Labour Congress meetings here in Ottawa on March 24 and 26 and has asked to appear before the committee.

I think it's relevant and current. As a matter of fact, in the draft that we talked about, we have an open meeting. On March 26 we had scheduled one other meeting—one meeting on Canada-U.S. trade for that week and one on something else. So it does, coincidently, appear that we could have this witness appear and make this a Colombia meeting on March 26.

I think we're going to begin a general discussion of South American matters again pretty quickly, with Brazil and others.

If there's no objection, I'll accept that invitation.

Mr. Silva, and then Monsieur Cardin.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have a problem with having a visiting senator come before the committee; however, I don't know anything about the senator, nor do I know what views he has on particular deals. In every democracy, different political leaders always have different opinions or different views on certain things, and I don't want to have the senator come here and give a view that is not necessarily shared by the government or by the senate. Will he be here speaking to the committee in his capacity as a senate representative and on behalf of the government as well? What is his view?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

My sense is that he will represent a certain point of view, and that's reasonable. At this committee we have had very diverse views, and we have visited Colombia, so there is a lot to discuss.

Over the course of the next month or two, there will be lots of opportunity for all kinds of diverse views on this subject. I appreciate your point, but I think we're going to let him speak his mind, whatever his point of view, as a courtesy.

Go ahead, Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, we will be called upon to discuss this free trade agreement with Colombia. We have always tried to strike a balance by inviting parties with opposing opinions. Wouldn't it be appropriate to have other guests who will defend opinions different from those of the senator, which are fairly predictable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, I think that's a good point. It seems to me that if we are going to have witnesses.... We've had several in the past, and I think the clerk could probably provide a balanced meeting. I take your points well.

It certainly had been my intention that we wouldn't hear just one witness. We generally try to have three in order to provide a balance and a background on the issues, and it's a good idea anyway, to bring the new members of the committee up to speed. We may even have someone from the department come and give an overall briefing again, and then have a couple of witnesses on the points raised. We've generally found that the clerk is able to balance these things.

It's a good point, and well taken. Thank you, Monsieur Cardin.

Mr. Keddy and Mr. Cannis wanted to speak to this. We're running close to--

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

It's a question of time, Mr. Chairman. I'm assuming that if it happens that we have only one witness, we'd have only a one-hour meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

There's probably good reason to have this committee briefed on Colombia, so we could probably use the whole meeting and get into a pretty good discussion on Colombia.