Evidence of meeting #2 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was procurement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Director, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
In terms of hard numbers, it goes back to the previous answer. In terms of subjective evaluation, everybody will have their own. It will be up to them to judge.
March 11th, 2010 / 4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Thanks very much.
I'd like to thank our guests for being here today. I have a few short questions, and I'd be grateful if the responses were equally so. Sometimes, by the way, you're allowed to just say “no” to some of the questions.
To be clear, our committee has always been concerned about the Buy American provisions. It's been that way because of the impact the provisions have in terms of procurement on behalf of Canadian companies. Our committee has several concerns, which is why this is one piece of a series of issues that we are dealing with as it relates to our relationship with the United States. Of course, we all know that our free trade agreement is a federal-to-federal relationship that does not include the provinces, territories, and local governments.
It seems to me that this agreement has two values. One is to assist, from a Canadian perspective, any opportunities that are still available with uncommitted contracts and the like at the state and more local government levels. The second part I see is the next deal; in other words, if we get it right for the duration of this agreement, I hope we will have laid the groundwork, with this deal, to give us the foundation for getting the permanent deal—if it will be a permanent deal—in place.
This leads to my question. It might be early to ask, but is there anything that you would imagine you would like to see in a deal on behalf of Canada—the next deal—that is not currently in this deal?
That one wasn't a yes or no answer; I'm sorry.
4:35 p.m.
Director, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Again, that would be speculative at this time. What we have in the agreement is the commitment to engage in discussions to see what would be the environment in which we would be discussing, and....
4:35 p.m.
Director, Multilateral Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Of course we are going to work closely with the stakeholders, including the provinces and territories. Their role continues to be important.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Director, Multilateral Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Absolutely.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
I have a question then. We've talked about the fact that there are 37 states involved in this agreement. I also know that Canada is the major export market for 37 of the 50 states. Is it the same 37 states, as far as you know--or do you know?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Multilateral Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I'd have to get back to you on that.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
My separate question relates to that. How is it these 37 states came to be, and what happened to the other 13?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Multilateral Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I wasn't around in 1994. I can try to find out for you from the record.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
No, I'm talking about this procurement arrangement, where 37 states are participating.
4:35 p.m.
Director, Multilateral Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The 37 states that are participating are the 37 states that already make commitments. The structure of the deal is that the U.S. commitments currently, under the agreement on government procurement, include 37 states. These were not extended to Canada, but Canada did not have commitments at the sub-federal level. So the 37 states were made available to all the members of the agreement on government with Canada, except Canada.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
My next question has to do more with the dispute resolution system now.
I'm glad to see that my colleague from the NDP feels that this agreement has teeth. I think that's very nice.
Now, it's only been in force since February 16 of this year. Have there been any disputes so far, as early as it is?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Multilateral Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
No.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
That's a good sign.
If there is a dispute, though—forgive me, because I've looked only briefly through the agreement--I know that there are some time provisions in there. If a complainant has an issue, they have a certain amount of time to press their case. I didn't see a timeframe in there on when they had to resolve the situation. Is there anything in there for time of resolution?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Multilateral Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The quick answer to that is no. However, there are three types available. In the agreement on government procurement itself, there is what we call the domestic review process, which applies from a bidder to a procuring entity, and there are the dispute settlement actions, which are party to party for more systemic issues. The agreement itself also has a consultation process for disputes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
I guess I'm concerned about the potential that the United States would run out the clock and all of a sudden it would get to the point where it might not be to our advantage. I put that out for your consideration so that when we get to the next deal it might be something you would look at.
Mr. Chair, if I have time for one more question, I'll take it.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you, Mr. Holder.
For the final question we have Monsieur Guimond. You have five minutes for questions and answers.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your kind words. I never once doubted your concern for my well-being. I told my new colleague Mr. Laforest that you were a good chair and that this was an excellent committee. By the way, I'd like to comment on the tie worn by my friend Mr. Holder. The colour red suits him rather well after all.
Regarding the agreement, earlier my friend Mr. Holder talked about the recourse available should a disagreement arise and you commented on this. We are hearing a lot about the WTO. With respect to the new agreement concluded in February, it is the provinces that have benefited from an opening on this front, but it is Canada, the federal government, that is a member of the WTO.
Regarding the current agreement between Canada and the United States, what role does the WTO play in the event of a dispute?
4:40 p.m.
Director, Multilateral Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Should a dispute arise between the two parties, that is between Canada and the United States, the same procedure followed for other WTO agreements would apply. An equivalent dispute resolution process would apply.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Supposing a dispute arose between a province—for example, Quebec—and the United States over a project initiated in this province, what authority could the WTO exercise?
