Evidence of meeting #2 for Natural Resources in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nafta.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I need less than five minutes, it won't take long. I just have one quick question left to ask, if possible.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
I think you can see from the conversation we've had that the sections that have been referred to us are not burning issues. My telephone hasn't been ringing in terms of that particular feature, but as you're hearing, softwood lumber and aluminum are significant issues, and they really are part of the natural resources committee.
I understand that the U.S. is not naming judges to the WTO. To what degree is that going to hinder our ability to get a decision around softwood lumber at the WTO?
4:35 p.m.
Chief Negotiator and Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Certainly it will create some difficulties. Obviously, it doesn't affect our NAFTA challenges, the three challenges that Colin mentioned. I think one of the WTO challenges.... No, I'm thinking of something else. It's not that advanced at the moment.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Our challenges around softwood lumber are not impacted by the lack of judges to hear the cases.
4:35 p.m.
Chief Negotiator and Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
At the WTO, it is a possibility that they could be affected, but we have a far stronger mechanism with the NAFTA dispute settlement process, and that's what we're focused on. The WTO challenges are also important but not as important as the NAFTA challenges.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
This might sound a little obscure, but if a product is made in Canada where it's deemed to be not meeting some regulatory standards within Canada, and it meets regulatory standards within the U.S., is there anything that precludes export of that particular product to the U.S.?
In this case I'm thinking of an agricultural product and this regulatory alignment that is not legal in Canada but legal in the U.S. and made in Canada. Are there any challenges there?
4:40 p.m.
Chief Negotiator and Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Yes, and it would vary, of course, somewhat from product to product, but products produced in Canada generally have to meet our own standards for safety reasons, even if they are destined for export, in particular, health and safety requirements and those kinds of things.
To some extent, regulatory differences may be tailored to the market we are exporting to, but it wouldn't go so far as to be something that is illegal in Canada.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
We did hear the comments of Mr. Lefebvre, and I've heard the minister talk about the importance of getting this agreement done. We certainly concur with her.
We offered to come back early after the election. We waited to see this legislation tabled in December, thinking it could have been studied by committee throughout the Christmas period. We thought we might be called back, but certainly from the Conservatives' perspective, we also don't believe that it's our job simply to rubber-stamp at all stages without having any process around it, so we're moving it forward with due diligence. We were very disappointed that we did not see it come to the table. I know that the government had said it always wanted to be in lockstep with the Americans in terms of their process, and when this was tabled on January 29, that certainly was not in lockstep.
I want to put that on the record, because I think the conversation we're having today is important, and we would prefer to have had it a month ago.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay, the only other person is Mr. Simard.
I'll give you about two minutes, and then we'll be done.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I will be very quick.
I do not understand the entire scope of eliminating the energy proportionality clause. But I particularly wonder about the repercussions it might have if Hydro-Québec concluded a process. We now know that they are in discussions with New York State with a view to providing hydroelectric services. Could this have negative consequences for Hydro-Québec?
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects Management Office, Department of Natural Resources
Thank you for your question.
It is important to know what the proposed agreement between Hydro-Québec and New York State is about. This is a discussion between two commercial parties seeking an agreement that would be positive and beneficial for both.
When we look at it, we see it would not apply. The proportionality clause is really one that's invoked in the event that there's a restriction on supply, and that a party on the other side, the United States or Canada, whichever it might be, would seek to secure that supply. A commercial agreement between Hydro-Québec and New York state would be a much more enduring outcome. Certainly that's why those agreements are of much more interest to the energy providers.
In the oil and gas sector, it's a bit more fluid. Things happen on a monthly basis and they're traded much more rapidly. In electricity, it's usually a standing agreement, with very precise elements that go over longer periods of time, because the nature of the electricity flows is harder to manage.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Simard.
Thank you very much to our witnesses for taking the time to come here and being patient in answering all our questions. That brings us to a conclusion, so I will let them go.
We'll suspend for, let's say, a hard three minutes, everybody, and then we'll come back in camera and start talking about drafting instructions.
[Proceedings continue in camera]