International Trade Committee on June 10th, 2010

[Richard Phillips]

They actually have issues even within Europe, fighting over their geographical indicators between, say, Greece and France. There are a lot of geographical indicators among all the countries within the EU, but Canada will also have some geographical indicators as well, whether for something as broad as Canadian bacon or for other things. As Kathleen mentioned, we have artisan cheeses, like Oka cheese, for example. We'll have specific cheeses that we also want to protect. We may have other meat products. I don't know if we have any brand-name Canadian canola or not. We have interests as well in geographical indicators, but not as many as they will have.

[Jason Langrish]

Just to add to that, the geographical indicator system is legitimate, but it should not be used as a catch-all for every single thing. If it serves a legitimate business purpose, much as our trademarking system in Canada does, then I think it should be reasonably negotiated within the agreement, but I think the Canadian government should be vigilant that it doesn't overspill its bounds.

When you hear things, such as that the Czechs want a GI on the word “chateau”--and this may be hearsay—then we see this as going a little bit too far. We also need to be conscious, of course, of what the GI system will mean with regard to not just the agricultural producers but also grocery stores and things of that nature. So we'd say, speaking on behalf of the business community, that it's fine that they're negotiating that, within reason.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

We all agree that during the next round of negotiations, the European way of doing things will present a challenge.

Ms. Sullivan,you said in your presentation that, if we want to maintain our good reputation, we should increase exports. I agree with you.

What kind of leverage do we have to really make inroads into the market, especially the European Union's market?

[Kathleen Sullivan]

Sorry, my translation went out for a few seconds.

[Richard Phillips]

I think Canada has a very good reputation for producing high-quality products. If you were to go to Europe and ask people what they think of Canada, they'd talk about our open spaces, the mountains, fresh water, and clean air. We have, I think, some natural advantages if the question is about our reputation and ability to market. I think there's an image of Canada around canola and our pulse crops--peas and lentils--and our beef, pork and wheat, that will actually work very much to our advantage when we go into the European market.

Was that your question?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

That's okay.

Do you agree, Ms. Sullivan?

[Kathleen Sullivan]

Yes. One of the interesting things about Europe as a potential trading partner is that--and this is not always the case with other countries we might trade with--they are culturally very similar to us. A lot of Canadians have European heritage. The idea of trading with Europe is not as hard to get your head around. The types of products we enjoy are very similar. As well, as Richard pointed out, Canada does have a very strong reputation for quality of product, and a lot of our standards are very similar to European standards, so not withstanding the differences we often butt heads on, we do have very similar standards and very similar values at the end of the day.

But even more importantly, I think there is a demand in Europe for a lot of the products we produce--for instance, for high-quality cuts of beef or for pork products. In fact we have really nice reciprocal trade with Europe, because some of the products they want and have a deficit in, we can ship to them, and some of the products we are weak in--ribs, for example--they can ship here. So there are market opportunities as well, and I think that's something we need to get our head around. This is a commercial opportunity for our farmers here in Canada and for our food processors here in Canada. So they will be receptive to Canadian product, and there's a demand there that we can help to fill.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Speaking of exports, our opportunities and advantages are very clear. However, as our products hit the European market, European products will appear on our market, as well.

What products could pose a particular threat to our market? Have you conducted any studies on this matter?

[Kathleen Sullivan]

I'm not sure we've really viewed the exports from Europe on the food side as a threat. I suppose, in fact, they would likely be trading products very complementary to ours. As I mentioned, on the pork side we have a deficit in ribs, and they have a deficit in ham, so a very nice reciprocal trade exists there. As far as processed food goes, we would probably see quite a bit of processed food coming over from Europe. We already do.

One of the reasons we are really fascinated by this agreement is that it's so big, and it's so broad. We're actually expecting that at the end of the day we will be gaining agricultural access in exchange for a bunch of other things, which would not necessarily include their agricultural access into Canada. There's no doubt that agricultural exports are important to the EU, but I would imagine in the context of these particular negotiations that agriculture would not be at the top of their list. There are a bunch of other things. This is so different for agriculture in Canada. We're usually in a position of trying to balance our export sectors and our import-sensitive sectors at the same time. We're so enthusiastic about this agreement because it gives us a chance to step outside of that box and perhaps make some really significant gains for agricultural exporters, without perhaps focusing so much on the import side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Great. Thank you.

Did you have a final word, Mr. McLaren?

[Roy McLaren]

Do you mean on this subject or a final word?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, at this point it's going to be both, and welcome it.

[Roy McLaren]

No, I think Ms. Sullivan has answered a whole lot of questions very effectively. I happen to think this is the greatest thing since night baseball, and I'm just very happy that we've made a whole lot of progress in the last months on reaching an agreement.

Perhaps I should add that I was somewhat taken aback by the pseudo-statistics offered by one member. I assume--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

They're from Statistics Canada, Mr. McLaren.

[Roy McLaren]

Yes, and they'll be for merchandise trade.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Exports, imports, trade balances.

[Roy McLaren]

It won't be trade in services. They reflect, in fact--if you take the most recent--the economic downturn that has beset the world.

Anyway, as Disraeli said, there are statistics and statistics and damn lies, but there we are.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the opportunity to be with you today and to point out the benefits of engaging in this WTO-plus agreement with Europe. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. McLaren and Mr. Langrish. We very much appreciate it. As well, we thank Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Phillips for joining us here in Ottawa. That was a great opening. I very much appreciate it. I'd like to have you all back along the way if this goes well. It very well may. I'd welcome you to come back. Thank you again for today.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I would like to clarify something, Mr. Chair.

Next Tuesday, officials from the Department of International Trade will speak on this topic. Have any witnesses been proposed to the clerk for next Thursday's meeting? You have some names.

The witness list is not yet complete, so if you have any suggestions...

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We've had a little bit of a concern regarding logistics, because I didn't get the balance I was expecting and looking for for Tuesday. But now I understand we have received a good cross-section of witnesses. So I'm thinking--and we're still kind of putting it together--that Monday.... Also, the negotiators have just come back into the country and are meeting with the provinces next week. I expected they would be back in Ottawa next week, but the chief negotiator will be in British Columbia next week with provincial officials.

I think we're going to try to get one of the Ottawa-based negotiators to be here with us on Tuesday and perhaps have the head negotiator by teleconference from Vancouver, oddly enough, for the first hour. Coincidentally, we've had a request from the European Union delegation. So I thought maybe we'd have them to fill out the hour on Tuesday to balance that off. We'll kind of get a government perspective, a negotiator perspective. Then we'll probably have one more day of hearing witnesses in the normal fashion. The clerk advises me that we have a pretty good balance.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

So the intention, Mr. Chair, is to have hearings next Thursday? Okay. We'll have some names, we can--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Get them into the clerk. I think we have some pretty good ones, but we always welcome more. My sense of it is that we're going to be at this for a while, and everybody is going to have an opportunity to speak, as is always the case at this committee.

There we go.

Thank you. Have a good weekend, and we'll see you next week.

The meeting is adjourned.