International Trade Committee on May 4th, 2017

[Daniel Ujczo]

Absolutely. If we send a signal right now that we are going to mutually recognize each other's standards, as we have already done with our larger food safety standards, we can get a win right there so that businesses can plan ahead. I think that's the signal the RCC actually sends, that on issues outside of the big hitters in North American softwood, dairy, etc., we are going to have this mutual recognition program between Canada and the United States.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

The first thing we need to do is take the politics out of all this, and then we'll actually have a shot at making it happen.

The bottom line is that every time there is a border tax, a carbon tax, a regulation, or red tape, consumers pay for it. Whatever we come up with, whatever this creature looks like at the end of the day, it's all going to be based on rules and regulations to keep everything fair, when really they can't. At the end of the day, the consumer pays for it.

The tariff on softwood lumber right now is costing American home builders. It's not going to hurt Canada, with a 72-cent dollar. It's going to hurt Americans trying to build a home the first time around.

[Daniel Ujczo]

In that vein, on the Canadian side there is the drywall dispute, in which the U.S. has been pushed out of the gypsum industry, and Alberta and western Canada building contractors are now increasing prices to rebuild in Fort McMurray and elsewhere.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

There is a U.S. counterpart and a Canadian counterpart that are both owned by a company in France.

[Daniel Ujczo]

Absolutely.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

They are fighting each other, trying to gain a market share by suing each other. We actually won that through our CITT panel, but the government hasn't put in the recommendation.

[Daniel Ujczo]

It's coming to eastern Canada soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Ritz. It's been a good dialogue, but you ran out of time.

We are going to move over to the Liberals. They're splitting their time.

Madame Lapointe, you're going to start. Go ahead.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Greenwood, I could ask the question I wanted to ask you earlier. You spoke about the harmonization of regulations. You referred to veterinary products and medications. How could we go about harmonizing those regulations, among others?

[Maryscott Greenwood]

The United States and Canada have been working together on regulatory harmony since 2011. President Obama and Prime Minister Harper at the time announced this regulatory co-operation effort. It is now supported by Prime Minister Trudeau and President Trump. It's a really good idea. We've been talking about it.

In terms of your particular question, there have been 35 different sectoral working groups in which officials in these various agencies, from Canada and from the United States, have been meeting pretty regularly, including with stakeholders to figure out where there are areas of just a slight difference, where's basically the same level of safety, but just a slightly different way it's tested.

The recommendations that we make on food safety, veterinary products, and medical devices would simply mutually align. If something is deemed safe in Canada, it's been inspected in Canada, and it's good enough for Canadians, the Americans would say, “That's good enough for our consumers too”, and vice versa. It's an immediate mutual recognition, which would be the first step.

The end goal is something that both of us mentioned. We call it a negative list; you called it a positive list. That's where you take the list of everything, all things, and say, “Everything regulated in the future must be harmonized, unless we set it aside and it's not.” In other words, instead of going line by line through every single medical device, food product, and manufacturing supply chain, and trying to figure out how to work it out, it's all got to be harmonized or mutually aligned, unless it's so contentious, or for whatever reason, you've got to set it aside as a negative list notion.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Did you want to add something, Mr. Nantais?

[Mark Nantais]

Madame Lapointe, if I may, we've had some great success with the regulatory co-operation council, but one of the key things that we continue to recommend between Canada and the U.S., as part of this next round, is to institutionalize or hardwire the process from the beginning of the regulatory process. That includes, by the way, even alignment on the research agenda, the data driven agenda, that the regulatory agencies should co-operate on, and start from the ground level.

That becomes institutionalized, so that when the United States or Canada decides to develop a regulation, then they should work together from ground zero on the development of that. That includes both the research and the establishment of the regulation, so there is no uncertainty about the future, because we cannot have that as industry or business. You have to have a sightline on the future; you have to have that certainty. Changing this along the way because it's politically expedient to do so—I don't mean any disrespect by that—is not on. That will not work.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

May I have one last point?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

We have enough time I think.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

Dan said he wouldn't bring up regulatory cooperation on a first date.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Maryscott Greenwood]

That's why we never dated, because I think it's super hot, and the reason I do is that it would save billions of dollars over time. It would help so much small businesses, mom and pops, right up to big businesses.

I would complement the automotive industry. When we started with regulatory co-operation in 2011, any sector could have raised its hand and said, “We're ready, try us first”, and a lot of the sectors sat back and said, “Well, we're not really sure what this is, we'll just watch”, and the automotive sector said, “We want to be in the front of the line, as we've got some examples, and we'll give you case studies whether it's seatbelts, airbags, crash testing, you name it”, and that's one of the reasons, because they're—

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

They are doing that crash testing north of my riding, in Blainville.

[Maryscott Greenwood]

Fantastic. So yes, regulatory co-operation is about the sexiest thing I can every imagine talking about.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Did you want to answer that, Mr. Ujczo? Do you have something to add?

[Daniel Ujczo]

I agree with that wholeheartedly—not the dating part of it or the sexy part of it

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Daniel Ujczo]

—but I think the issue with the RCC, though, that we have to look at is the fact that we had a build a consensus within the bureaucracy on it. To get that, we actually spent a lot of time with Johns Hopkins University, going around talking to regulators and getting their reactions. The second issue had to do with early wins, like automotive and elsewhere. The real wins next will be with RCCs when we have new products being developed, as opposed to waiting and trying to fix something that's already there. As new technologies are developed, let's set up a common regulation at that time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay, the time is up.

We're going to move to the Conservatives.

Mr. Aboultaif, thank you for joining us here today. Go ahead, you have the floor.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you very much for having me today for the first time on the international trade committee. It's quite a pleasure to be here among this wonderful group.