Fisheries Committee on April 7th, 2014

[Marvin Hildebrand]

With respect to the first question, if the appellate body rules in Canada's favour and Norway's favour, then the EU will be obliged to bring their regime into compliance. There will be a reasonable period of time for them to do so, as is normal in any WTO case. The WTO cases often involve laws and regulations, which as we all know take some time to change when they have to be changed for whatever reason. So the EU would be obliged to come into compliance over a reasonable period of time, if that is the way things turn out.

With respect to your second question on what the future might hold, I'm afraid that's a very difficult question and it really involves a prediction and any number of variables related to both human decisions and objectives and to market fundamentals that present a rather significant overlay in terms of uncertainties.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Yes, I thought that was the answer. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Just to follow on that question, if the appeal fails, what happens? If we win the appeal, can the EU appeal the decision?

[Marvin Hildebrand]

There isn't a further appeal.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

There's no further appeal, and they have to comply.

[Marvin Hildebrand]

They are obliged to comply.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

If we lose, do we have any other options?

[Marvin Hildebrand]

We would certainly weigh our options at that point, but I'm not in a position to speculate as to what our actions might be or what our next steps might be.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

You also indicated that the CETA agreement gives us improved access. Did the seal issue come up in the negotiations at all, and if it did, how was it dealt with? If the seal issue was not brought up, why was it not brought up?

[Marvin Hildebrand]

My answer would hearken back to one of my earlier answers and that is the fundamental difference between the negotiation of provisions and obligations that form a treaty and the enforcement of an action that is perceived to violate an international trade obligation.

It's not surprising that the pursuit in the WTO was done on a totally separate track. The pursuit by Canada of allegations that the EU was not abiding by its international trade commitments is an entirely separate issue from the negotiation of such commitments and of a new and stand-alone treaty.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that it dealt with the broader picture. Is that correct?

[Marvin Hildebrand]

It's like a negotiation issue versus an enforcement issue.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

After it was announced that the CETA agreement was going to be signed there were great expectations and we were going to be able to export more fish.

My only question is: was there ever a mention during the negotiations of the seal fishery in this country? If not, I wonder why not. Would it just jeopardize the negotiations? Was it not valuable enough to be discussed at the CETA, or was it inappropriate to discuss it?

[Marvin Hildebrand]

I was not personally involved in the CETA negotiations. But personally, I would say that because that was a negotiation, it would have been off topic, in that the subject really was the enforcement of the EU's existing obligations under the WTO that have been there for many years. I'm not surprised that it wasn't raised because it would have been off topic, in my view, as part of a negotiation versus the enforcement of trade commitments.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Basically what you're telling me is that the negotiation itself did not deal with specifics like wheat, grain, or pork. These subjects were not brought up.

[Marvin Hildebrand]

Absolutely the tariff negotiations, by definition, have to deal with individual products. Again, we're talking about the establishment of commitments in a new treaty for wheat or pork or whatever product, as compared to an action—a law, a regulation, a decision—that violates an existing commitment. That is what we were dealing with in this case.

The rules of commerce between Canada and the EU, the very broad foundation of that is the WTO. That is the mechanism, by far the most appropriate and effective mechanism, for us to get them to change what they're doing because they're offside.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

What markets are left for our seal products?

[Marvin Hildebrand]

There are some eastern European markets, outside of the EU. I have seen Turkey as a market for a small amount. All of the amounts, relatively speaking now, are small relative to what they were. There is China, to some degree, and Turkey. There are not that many.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Those are small amounts, though.

[Marvin Hildebrand]

Small amounts because our whole industry has shrunk so much.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Concerning tariffs—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay. Your time is up, sir.

On behalf of the committee, gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for coming today. In Mr. MacAulay's words, thank you for your determination as well to be here and to answer our committee members' questions.

I believe, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Hildebrand, there was a commitment to provide some numbers for Greenland. If you could do that through our clerk, I would appreciate that and we'll make sure it gets circulated to committee members.

Thank you very much, once again, on behalf of the committee members.

There being no further business, this committee stands adjourned.