International Trade Committee on June 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Not really. You'll have to get it in the next round. Sorry. That's it for this round. Thank you.

We're going to start a quick second round. I think we've got time for five-minute rounds.

We'll start with Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today for informing us on this important and quite distinct negotiation. It's distinct for a number of reasons. Have you seen a previous FTA discussion with as much provincial engagement as this one? One could argue provincial leadership on certain files, particularly Quebec.

[Steve Verheul]

I could answer that one. No, we have never seen anywhere near this kind of involvement of provincial or territorial officials in any previous negotiation. I think that's the case, not just in Canada, but it would be the same among other countries that have the same kind of federal and provincial, or federal and sub-national, government system. So by far, this is a degree of involvement we have not seen before.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The discussions are also distinct from previous FTA discussions because of the regulatory discussion and also the discussions around professional accreditation, both of which, particularly professional accreditation, involve provincial governments in terms of the need for them to be engaged. How important has the provincial leadership and engagement been on professional accreditation, as an example, in terms of the discussions with the EU and, I would assume, the discussions with the professional organizations within Canada?

[Steve Verheul]

Well, that's certainly been a key part of the discussions on that issue. The provinces have been leading the way in wanting that issue to be one of our top priorities. There's a great desire in many of the provinces to have increased labour mobility into their provinces to address labour shortages in particular areas or professions. Obviously, it doesn't involve just the provinces and territories. As you mentioned, it also involves the professional associations themselves. We need to have them on board and supportive as well. But this has been very much an issue where the provinces and territories have been front and centre and pushing this issue in the negotiations.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes, Mr. Plunkett.

[David Plunkett]

If I might just add, I don't want to leave the impression that while Steve's process has taken us into some new ground here in terms of involvement and whatnot, in previous negotiations, and even current negotiations, we're having to address some of these same issues—issues like labour mobility, temporary entry. If you look at the ones this committee has already passed through, you'll see that some of these issues are already being addressed. I think what we may be seeing is going further and faster in some instances, but we're having to confront some of these same issues in other negotiations as well.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

On the regulatory side, are you talking about, as an example, phytosanitary-type regulations? Are things like drug approval part of the discussion? I'm just curious as to what areas of regulatory cooperation or harmonization or mutual recognition you're exploring.

[Steve Verheul]

We have a very broad coverage to what we're trying to achieve in regulatory cooperation that excludes very little. It certainly covers all of the kinds of issues that you've been describing—all of the goods issues, including sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade measures. It even includes areas related to various services that we're looking at. So it's a very broad coverage we're looking at.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

On the status, I guess I'm focusing on the two areas--professional accreditation and the regulatory side--because they're areas where you're going further than previous discussions on previous agreements have involved.

This is a very tough question for you to answer, but I'm still going to pose it. What's the motivation to advance the discussion on the regulatory and the professional accreditation side? Is the impetus primarily from the provinces? How much success do you expect us to have on the professional accreditation and regulatory side? I find those two areas very important because they represent what have been significant non-tariff trade barriers in the past. It's logical that they're part of the discussion, but how successful do you think we'll be on those two files, given that it's fairly uncharted territory?

[Steve Verheul]

Starting with regulatory cooperation, the whole regulatory area, I think we will be quite successful. In fact, we've already essentially finished the chapter on regulatory cooperation. As I mentioned earlier, that's the first time we've ever seen a chapter on regulatory cooperation in a free trade agreement, in any free trade agreement. So we've made good progress there.

Addressing some of the existing regulatory standards that may act as barriers is more complex and it will vary from issue to issue, but I think we will make some significant steps forward there as well.

On professional accreditation, this one is more of a challenge because of the diversity among the EU 27-member states. Some are very open to this, and in fact, Quebec and France have already had discussions covering some 80 occupations. So there's been a good headstart there.

At the same time, other member states are going to be much more reserved in terms of opening up those areas. It's an internal problem within the EU already. There's still a concern about the Polish plumber phenomenon that went through Europe some time ago, when a number of the earlier EU member states, like the U.K., Germany, and a few others, were concerned about a flood of Polish plumbers coming in when Poland joined the EU. That didn't really happen, and I don't think they see the same kind of threat from Canada, but we will have some work to do among some member states on that issue.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I had a septic tank backup at my house in the country over the weekend, and I wouldn't have cared where the plumber came from, to be honest.

Thank you very much for informing us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thanks for that.

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That actually defies description. Let's carry on.

I'd like to thank our guests for being here today.

As a member of the committee for the last 18 or 19 months, I find it interesting that this is the first time I've been involved when the deal has not been signed and we're talking after the fact. I think this is quite useful and helpful. So thank you all for doing this.

I have a few very quick questions, because time is limited. One thing I'm interested in really ties into issues of mobility, but from a couple of perspectives.

Canada has had some issues in the past with visas around the world--Mexico being one, Slovakia being another. To the extent that we have some challenges with some of the member states of the EU, does this deal touch on that at all? Is our sovereign right as a country still intact to be able to refuse automatic entry as a result of this, with respect to abuse?

I'm not sure who would take that question. I'm just trying to get a sense...

Mr. Plunkett.

[David Plunkett]

I'll let Steve answer about the EU, but I can broaden it out a bit afterwards.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Verheul.

[Steve Verheul]

Within the EU negotiations we're certainly not addressing any of those issues, and full flexibility for the Government of Canada will continue to be maintained in those areas. We have had some criticism, particularly on the application of visas against the Czech Republic, but it has not come up in the negotiations at all, and we have no intention of going in that direction.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

It's rather interesting that you talked to a prior respondent about increased labour mobility and accreditation. I'm just wondering to what extent the negotiations we're having with the EU will assist Canada's own interprovincial issues related to labour mobility. I still think that's a huge issue. It may not apply to the EU, but to what extent will our qualification processes amongst provinces become more flexible as a result of this? Quite frankly, I find the current interprovincial circumstances very sad today.

Maybe that's more of a statement than a question.

[Steve Verheul]

Yes, but I would like to respond.

Certainly that whole issue has come up. The whole question of whether we might be able to improve some of our existing situations between provinces through this kind of negotiation is evident. I think there is the potential to deal with some of those issues.

On professional accreditation itself, just last year the agreement on internal trade managed to agree to a provision that if professional accreditation is accepted in one province, that acceptance extends across the rest of the provinces automatically, with some limited exceptions.

We have a bit of a dilemma in the negotiations with the EU, because when we agree that an architect with a degree and training from the EU will be able to work in Canada, if that's originally negotiated by Alberta it will apply to all of Canada. So that architect will be able to work in any province in Canada. Unfortunately, from a negotiating perspective, it won't work the same the other way for us. If we negotiate an agreement on accreditation between Canada and France, it will work for France but it won't necessarily work for Germany, the U.K., or other countries. We will have to negotiate this almost on a member state by member state basis.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

In the deals I've seen to this point we've had side agreements on labour, environment, and, most recently, human rights accords. Is the EU deal intended to be within or outside of the actual free trade agreement?

[Steve Verheul]

We agreed with the EU early on in negotiations that instead of having side agreements, as we had previously in some of our FTAs, we would have both labour and environment as chapters inside of the agreement this time around.

That was partly a matter of accepting that the EU tends to do it that way, although they tend to have a single chapter on sustainable development that covers both of those issues. But it's also a recognition that this is where we thought it would ultimately make more sense in negotiations with the EU. It's also the direction in which others, such the U.S., have since gone after NAFTA. We think it's partly catching up with how others are doing it now, as well as just having a better fit with the EU.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Guimond, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, gentlemen.

My question is for Mr. Gauthier.

In Europe, there have been designations such as appellations d'origine contrôlée for a long time, as well as geographical indicators. That is the European trademark, specifically in the area of agriculture. They have managed to market their products based on these types of classifications. There is some concern, mainly in Quebec, on this point. Will this be included in the agreement?

For instance, in Quebec, we produce a number of cheeses, hundreds of types of cheese. We are already using terms such as “brie”, “gouda”, “feta”, “parmesan”, which are controlled and geographical classifications in Europe. So, where do discussions stand on geographical indications?

[Gilles Gauthier]

Thank you for your question.

With respect to geographical indications, that fits within a series of European proposals on intellectual property. The Europeans, as you mentioned, have quite an elaborate system for the protection of geographical indications. In Canada, we do not have the same system. It exists, in part, for wine and spirits, under a bilateral agreement signed with Europe several years ago, but only for wine and spirits.

What we have in Canada is a trademark certification system. So currently, the focus of negotiations is to compare these two intellectual property protection systems to see whether there are potential areas of agreement to ensure better intellectual property protection. The European system is rather different from ours. It is true that there are a number of terms, with respect to cheeses, which are protected in Europe by geographical indications, whereas we tend to use these terms on the basis of common or generic designations, for which one would have cheese manufacturing standards.

The discussion has to do with the way in which a European geographical indication approach could apply within the Canadian context, given the generic use of the terms just mentioned in Canada, and also given our trademark protection system. So, the debate revolves around the way in which we can find commonalities between our two systems.

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

We need to find communalities, or negotiate to ensure that once we have signed an agreement the Europeans cannot take us to court because we are using the word “feta“ in a generic sense for cheese produced in Quebec, is that right?