Evidence of meeting #41 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was negotiations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you. I think that's a very important issue. I'm glad you're trying to address it.
Mr. Valeriote, five minutes.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Steve and Gilles, for coming up. Your task is no doubt daunting.
Mr. Lemieux spoke about all of the benefits that are available to Canadians through a free trade agreement. No doubt there are, but I guess the question is, at what cost? We know that sometimes we will go and buy something at any cost because we want it so badly and we forget what we're really giving up.
I have two questions. One surrounds procurement--you've mentioned it several times, Steve, in your document--and rights of access particularly to our natural resources like water, oil, and other minerals, and also actually the right to bid on local projects, such as water systems and things like that.
You know, we very quickly label people “protectionist” because they want to support local industry. I think that's very unfair. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't; I think you need to have options.
I'm concerned at the $8.5 million threshold that you're talking about. For some municipalities, $8.5 million might be high, never reached, and for some--Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal--very low.
So I want your opinion on this. You need to appease the concerns of Canadians about those particular issues, and I'd like you to address that.
Secondly, Gilles, you talked about GMOs. In our discussions on Bill C-474, one of the solutions that was suggested was that we negotiate low-level presence with other countries so it would appease their concerns and give us access to markets we don't otherwise have. Can you talk more about that?
I'll start with Steve.
9:35 a.m.
Chief Trade Negotiator, Canada-European Union, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Thank you.
When we started looking into the issue of procurement at the provincial and municipal levels, the first thing we found out was that there is already a very open system, by and large. Municipalities and provinces often tend to go to where they can get the best deals and the lowest prices. European companies have been significantly involved in a lot of those procurement contracts already.
So we're talking here about making the determination on what we want to subject to obligations in this agreement. We've been engaged in extensive consultations with the provinces, territories, and municipalities about what they're prepared to include under the government procurement obligations. It will certainly be their decision in the end as to what they feel comfortable including. But they are also very interested to know exactly what that will mean if they are captured by the disciplines. How much is that going to limit their flexibility? How much is it going to constrain some of the objectives they might have?
As I mentioned earlier, there are a considerable number of flexibilities built into the system. Certainly nothing in any of the procurement provisions is going to prevent municipalities or provinces from regulating and ensuring that the kinds of policy objectives they want to achieve are maintained.
So we're going through a long process of consultation, and we'll be going in the direction of those procurements only in areas where the authorities are comfortable with the decision.
9:40 a.m.
Chief Trade Negotiator, Canada-European Union, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The natural resources issue is obviously an issue of some sensitivity in some cases. The Europeans have access to fewer natural resources than we do. We have a lot of natural resources. We want to sell some of them commercially, and Europe is an attractive market. We want to preserve and manage others in different manners. Those choices will remain up to us in the negotiations. In particular, we have many safeguards against any kind of loss of decision-making ability in the area of water.
9:40 a.m.
Director General and Chief Agriculture Negotiator, Negotiations and Multilateral Trade Policy Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Thank you.
On low-level presence, this is an issue we want to raise in the context of these negotiations to provide a better framework with a bit more predictability to the trade.
We're also pursuing a parallel approach. As you know, the European Union has already announced that they're looking at ways of dealing with this issue. They will be submitting a proposal in January for their council's approval. It is designed, in part at least, to provide a bit more predictability to the trade. That means allowing a low-level presence as part of a shipment.
It is important for us to ensure that the measures being implemented serve our overall export interests in the EU market, but we also need to be cognizant that the issue of GMO is very sensitive in Europe. We need to approach this issue from a practical standpoint and ensure that over time there is more predictability to the trade.
The EU needs to import a lot of feed from Canada and elsewhere. It is in their interest as well to have a predictable import regime for products in the grain sector. We can work with them to try to devise a solution that will be practical, recognizing the political challenge they're facing in Europe on the issue of GMO generally.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you, Mr. Valeriote.
We'll now move to Mr. Hoback for five minutes.
December 2nd, 2010 / 9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in this morning. It's great to see you here.
It's good to see you again, Steve. I haven't seen you for a couple of years, but I know you work hard on behalf of Canada and you're very capable of balancing tricky subjects and walking that fine line. I'm very confident that we'll have good negotiations because you're there. Because of your background in the agriculture sector, a lot of people out west are very comfortable with your being there.
One of the concerns I have, as we look at a trade agreement with the EU, is how it trickles into the EU countries. We have our own provinces and interprovincial trade barriers here in Saskatchewan that create our own set of issues. If we do a trade agreement with the EU, will individual EU countries be able to opt out of that trade agreement or pick and choose parts of it?
9:40 a.m.
Chief Trade Negotiator, Canada-European Union, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
No. Under the agreement within the European Union, member states don't have the option to opt in or out. The European Union will either accept the agreement as a whole--applying to all 27 members--or it will reject it, but there is no middle ground between those.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
So there's no mechanism, then. If we're doing an agreement on GMO canola--we'll use that as an example--if a couple of countries say, yes, we're willing to accept it, the EU says they're willing to accept it, then it's acceptable all through the EU. Correct?
9:45 a.m.
Chief Trade Negotiator, Canada-European Union, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
If the decision is taken at the level of the commission of the European Union, then it would apply across the entire 27 countries.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Okay.
I get very excited about the biotech sector, and I'm not sure if you're aware that this committee is going to be travelling and looking at the biotech sector. As we do this study, are there things we should be talking about with the people in the biotech industry as we move forward on concerns? Do you see there could be possible roadblocks in seeing the industry grow here in Canada?
9:45 a.m.
Director General and Chief Agriculture Negotiator, Negotiations and Multilateral Trade Policy Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Obviously, it is a very good sector for Canada, a growing sector. We need to continue to encourage innovation in our agriculture sector. The future lies with innovation.
I would answer that more in the trade context, I think what's important for us is to demonstrate, also, the value of these innovative products for the importing country. It is an instrument that enables a better, more reliable supply of feed and food, and deals with the issue of the global food security challenge that we're all facing. We need to substantiate the economic benefit for the farmers, for the environment, for the consumer.
I think that the sort of underpinning analysis that makes a compelling case for having, globally, a trade regime that is supportive of innovation and of predictable trade for GM products.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I'm going to move over to geographic indicators. When we look at geographical indicators, I know the example will probably be champagne out of France, out of the Champagne valley. How do we prevent geographical indicators from becoming something like country-of-origin labelling where, all of a sudden, the indicator is creating a situation where they're not bringing a product into that country?
Do you have any mechanisms to prevent that from happening?
9:45 a.m.
Director General and Chief Agriculture Negotiator, Negotiations and Multilateral Trade Policy Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Well, de facto, when you recognize a geographical indication, it means that is the only product that can be labelled with that appellation. It has to come from the region that the geographical indication relates to. There is a direct linkage to the origin of the product from that standpoint.
For us, the challenge is not necessarily the country of origin of that product, because automatically it will have to be a European product that has that GI name attached to it. For us, the challenge is to ensure that none of these recognized names would have an adverse effect in the Canadian marketplace in terms of our ability to produce these products under a common or generic name, or under a trademark.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Okay. I see what you're saying.
As we move forward, on the beef side of things, I know the beef sector is very excited on this side because they see lots of opportunity. Again, there's always the issue of hormone beef, the issue of being certified for Europeans.
Do you see a way to remove some of those barriers now in this trade deal so we can at least see a consistent or a reasonable manner in which we can gain access?
9:45 a.m.
Director General and Chief Agriculture Negotiator, Negotiations and Multilateral Trade Policy Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
All of the issues of phytosanitary and sanitary standards are very important. It's important in these negotiations that we work very closely to establish the proper mechanism to address these issues, to ensure that our veterinarian team at CFIA works closely with their counterparts in Europe to establish common approaches to plant approval and the design of import certificates so there is convergence among the regulatory standards of the two countries or at least some mutual recognition so that we don't face some of the problems we faced in the past.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Finally, we were talking about the European export enhancement program. What kind of mechanism or tools would you use in that type of bilateral to create some sort of ability to claw that back or clamp it down? Would there be an offset, if they decided to do it? Would they pay a penalty to Canada? Do you have any insight on what you're looking at there, to try to rein that in?
9:50 a.m.
Director General and Chief Agriculture Negotiator, Negotiations and Multilateral Trade Policy Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
That's part of any trade agreement. You always have a mechanism in order to address a potential dispute. And if the other party does not comply, you would have a right to compensation and retaliation.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I guess the problem with the export enhancement program is that we get side-swiped. It's not a direct program going right into Canada. It's them selling into our markets. It brings the price down and we get side-swiped.
9:50 a.m.
Director General and Chief Agriculture Negotiator, Negotiations and Multilateral Trade Policy Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Well, yes, if you're talking directly about export subsidies; obviously, in a bilateral agreement between Canada and the EU, we do not want to allow for the use of export subsidies in bilateral trade. That would not be fair competition, a level playing field. So we're looking for a complete prohibition of the use of export subsidies in bilateral trade.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative