International Trade Committee on Aug. 14th, 2017

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that since before the U.S. election, it's been all hands on deck looking at NAFTA, through our officials like you, our diplomatic corps, and now also on the political side. I'm glad to see that we've done it for the most part in a non-partisan way, and we understand just how important this is for us.

There's been a great deal of consultation, through our online portal, in meeting with associations, chambers of commerce, and many elected officials, business leaders, etc., and stateside. Have there been a number of “Aha” moments for you when you've thought that something is a really great idea that you can bring to the table, on which you could find that common ground and there's a win-win-win for everybody? Are there any that you would be able to share with us, that we can move on? We've heard about the modernization, the harmonization of regulations, etc., but maybe you can go into a little bit more detail on some of those—and those can be from any sector. Could you highlight some of those for us?

[Catherine Gosselin, Deputy Director, Trade Negotiations - North America (TNP), Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Yes, we've heard some common trends, I think, from many of the people we consulted, the different groups. One of the common trends was “do no harm”, to try to preserve what we already have access to in the negotiations. Another trend had to do with what some call “harmonization” or regulatory co-operation, to try to get some coherence in specific sectors. That's another common trend in what we've heard in the consultations.

We also heard a lot about labour mobility and how we can ensure that the services that are provided can be followed through in regulations, etc. That's a common theme across the different groups that we have consulted with.

Another point that was made was about technology and how the advances in the last 20-plus years get reflected in the modernized NAFTA.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you.

So those are the trends.

What are some concrete irritants that you have found a solution for? Maybe you can highlight those for us, bring them to light just so we can take something back, something tangible that we can speak to, be it with one of our associations, or.... I have a meeting in a couple of weeks with the Mississauga Board of Trade, which is is going to want to know something about the negotiations, and also some of the things that would be concrete for them that they can think would be really helpful.

Also, maybe tell us a little bit about the team that you will be taking down to the first set of negotiations in Washington, D.C.

[Steve Verheul]

In terms of the issues on which I think we should be able to move to common agreement, and win win win across the board fairly quickly, many relate to customs facilitation and improving the process at the border. The common complaint we and the U.S. have heard is that we do have a very antiquated system for getting NAFTA preferences, for getting goods across the border, and not getting advance rulings, and those kinds of things. That can be speeded up considerably through automatic electronic processes that are used in other places. We should have those in NAFTA, and I think we can move there very quickly.

Other issues relate to movement back and forth as well, including movement of people back and forth. We can speed that up and accelerate it. If a business in the U.S. is looking to have somebody travel to Canada to work with a subsidiary that may be in Canada, those people should be able to move back and forth without any kind of holdups or extra complications at the border.

Most of the issues that we can move quickly on are of that nature: streamlining or modernizing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We're going to move over to Mr. Ritz.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time and your expertise here today.

I have a couple of questions for all of you who will be up to your ears in this file. Do you feel you have a mandate that will get the job done? We're looking at a target of January 2018. If we have no level of ambition, I guess that's doable.

Steve, you've done this all your life. Is that target just a goalpost, or is there a rationale and a reality that it's doable?

[Steve Verheul]

First of all, we've had many discussions internally. We know what kind of objectives we're going to be pursuing in the negotiations. We have a political endorsement of those objectives, so we are very clear on what we're setting out to do this coming week.

As to the deadline, I think, as members will well know, negotiations are difficult to predict. I've predicted the end of negotiations many times, and I have usually been wrong. So you just negotiate as hard as you can, and negotiations always have a certain rhythm. You never know when you're going to get stalled, when you're going to get delayed, or when you're going to make huge breakthroughs that can accelerate the negotiations.

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

Those are the fits and starts of negotiation, and it comes down to what we've discussed at times, negotiating momentum.

[Steve Verheul]

Yes.

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

You start to get on a roll, and you have to get back to someone and ask questions, and then they get back to you so you can continue. You know, you step out of a meeting 24 hours a day. This is going to be a little different because the time zones are better than they were in Brussels, but having said that, I remember meetings in the middle of the night and calls back to say okay, here we go to there.

Are you secure in the knowledge that you'll have that ability, that that negotiating momentum will be yours?

[Steve Verheul]

Well, it's really—

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

You have counsel you have to talk to now. You have a cabinet to work through, and so on.

[Steve Verheul]

Yes, but I think in the early stages, certainly in the first few rounds, we'll be laying the groundwork. We'll be dealing with the easy issues, getting them out of the way and off the table, and as we gradually go on, we will focus in on those most difficult issues that will require some political direction in all likelihood.

We do have mechanisms set up so that we can get that political direction quickly when we need it to keep pace with the pace of the negotiations. So I think we're well set up.

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

Do you have an idea of addressing new technologies and how you can make the new NAFTA a living document that can adapt? We've seen some tinkering, eleven times or something, over the 23 years, but is there a protocol in place or the ability to make certain clauses living documents so you can adapt and adjust them as is required, without opening a Pandora's box?

[Steve Verheul]

Well, that's the danger. If you have provisions that allow you to modernize or improve certain elements without having to start to unravel the whole agreement, then it can be done.

In CETA, for example, we have a number of provisions that allow, or even require, us to revisit certain issues to see whether they need to be modernized and updated. In NAFTA, not across the board, but in those areas that are most likely to need some kind of updating, we will be looking at provisions that could achieve that.

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

Have you as the chief negotiator had the opportunity to sit down with Kenneth Smith Ramos who is going to lead the Mexican delegation? He's a tremendous guy. I've known Ken, as you probably have, for years. He's very knowledgeable, just a wealth of information on NAFTA as a whole. And of course there is your American counterpart. Have you had the opportunity to at least have a phone call and start to get to know each other? A lot of it is personality.

[Steve Verheul]

It is, and there does need to be a good relationship among the negotiators at the table. I have certainly met with both John Melle and Kenneth Smith Ramos on two occasions face to face, and have also spoken to them on the telephone a number of times so far. Clearly, this coming week we'll be having a lot of time together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ritz.

That wraps up our time. Thank you, officials, for coming here and for all the hard work you do, not only on behalf of Parliament but for Canadians. Keep up the good work, and good luck in the next few months. You're definitely going to have your hands full.

Folks, we're only suspending for one minute, because we have 10 minutes of future business to do. Everyone who is not part of the committee, please leave the room.

[Proceedings continue in camera]