Evidence of meeting #39 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was acta.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Welcome to the 39th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage being held today February 7, 2010. We are meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) to study the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and issues regarding cultural diversity.
We are joined by two witnesses. I would like to welcome Mr. Vallerand and Mr. Drapeau, from the Coalition for Cultural Diversity.
We'll begin with an opening statement.
February 7th, 2011 / 3:30 p.m.
Charles Vallerand Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
How much time would you allow us each, or how do we split that?
3:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
I'm going to try to race through. Do you have a copy of my text already? That has been circulated. Okay. I can answer questions at the end in both languages, but I'll do my introduction in French mostly.
My name is Charles Vallerand and I am Executive Director of the Coalition for Cultural Diversity and the General Secretary of the International Federation of Coalitions for Cultural Diversity. I am accompanied by Mr. Daniel Drapeau, Counsel at Smart & Biggar and member of the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition who will speak to you about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
I do not think that I have to remind you of the role played by civil society in the adoption of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. My brief, which I will leave with you—as well as the additional information I will distribute—focus on the pivotal role we have played over the past ten years and more specifically on the leading role Canada has and continues to play internationally.
I would also like to point out that Canada was the first country to ratify the UNESCO convention and also contributes to the International Fund for Cultural Diversity. Canada is therefore, actively involved in implementing the Convention. This is the reason why the coalition is following the negotiations between Canada and the European Union with such great interest.
I will now pick up my prepared brief at item 19 on page 3. Several people believe that once the Convention has been adopted, it is mission accomplished. This is far from the case. It’s like thinking that the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights somehow eliminated all abuse and inequality. Indeed, we’re only at the starting point of a long process.
I would now like to focus on two urgent issues relating to the Convention. The first of these challenges is the need to build co-operation between countries of the north and those of the south to provide southern countries with the resources to implement the Convention as well as the technical capacity to develop and sustain cultural industries and artists. This is also crucial to ensure that UNESCO has the necessary financial resources to support the implementation process.
Our specific focus today is to ensure the UNESCO Convention be given its full legal and political weight with regard to other international mechanisms. The original idea behind the Convention was to develop a completely fresh legal mechanism to offset and frame the specific and special situation of culture, which is a commodity or a service with a recognized commercial value but also, and more importantly, a cultural value. What is required now is to develop the legal value and the jurisprudence. These trade negotiations are so important because the Canadian Government has, right from the outset, clearly focused on developing an extensive, broad modern trading relationship with a significant economic partner. Indeed, this is why the coalition and its 31 member associations, such as the Writers Guild in English Canada and the Guilde des réalisateurs and the Union des artistes and other French-language associations in French Canada are watching these negotiations so closely.
We are following the talks with great interest because it would be unfortunate to see the gains made through the Convention negotiated away or weakened by a potential free-trade agreement.
The coalition was quick to make its position on the issue known by way of a letter to Minister Moore at Canadian Heritage and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade at the time, Stockwell Day. They both wrote back informing us that the Canadian Government was committed to negotiating an agreement and a complete exemption for culture. We were reassured.
Quebec's Minister of Culture, Communications and the Status of Women and its Minister for International Relations gave the same undertaking. Unfortunately, it is clear that the talks are continuing and have now reached a critical point in the negotiation of issues yet to be resolved. Culture remains on the table. Obviously, reaching an agreement on a cultural exemption with the European Union is not as easy as might have been imagined. As you are aware, and Minister Van Loan referred to this last week—we represent civil society and as such, greatly appreciate these opportunities for consultation and dialogue with the senior negotiation officials.
We are aware of the challenges. We realize that the European Union and its negotiators have a different view of the cultural exemption and therefore, have to ask questions to understand our position and how it would apply across the agreement. The Europeans are asking some surprising questions given that the European Union and 26 of its 27 member states have ratified the UNESCO Convention. They are committed to diversity of expressions. Why are they asking these questions about the cultural exemption when Canada’s practice and approach have been well known for the past 20 years? They have requested clarification. Let’s hope that Canada is able to provide sufficiently reassuring clarification to coax the Europeans into signing an agreement. We have offered our co-operation and expertise in providing comprehensive answers to issues raised by our European counterparts.
We believe that just because the European Union is asking questions, does not mean that we should change our position or rush into an agreement just for the sake of it. Quite the opposite in fact. Canada has shown great leadership and must continue to do so. From the start of the process, France, which is a major player, as you know, has joined Canada in advocating a complete exemption. Premier Charest was in France recently. Both he and President Sarkozy stressed States’ legitimate right to enact cultural policies to preserve and promote their cultures.
For us the real issue here is developing the jurisprudence that I referred to earlier. This is important because there are very few legal texts, court decisions or international trade mechanisms that establish or recognize the legitimacy or even the very existence of the UNESCO Convention that we fought so hard to achieve.
Not only should the clause be watertight, we would suggest it also be reviewed and modernized to include new types of cultural industries, such as the new media and convergence. As you know, these are virtually an extension of audiovisual today.
Has any thought been given to reviewing the wording of the exemption clause in preparation for the future? Is there a reference in the agreement itself to the necessary consistency between the exemption, UNESCO Convention and the trade agreement? Achieving that and developing mutually satisfactory wording would help to develop jurisprudence. This would be a major step. We are lucky to be dealing with a major trading partner, which supports our position. These are perhaps the only bilateral trade negotiations where this will ever be the case.
I would like to share one caveat with regard to the review of the clause that officials working on this file have expressed to us. Be proactive, be modern and prepare for the future but do not open the door to a review of existing bilateral trade deals and agreements. We should ask legal experts to do an in depth assessment of my proposal to ensure that it does not create more problems than opportunities.
I would now like to address the Cultural Co-operation Agreement or Protocol. Quebec has played the lead, through its negotiator Pierre-Marc Johnson, in promoting this idea. I have to tell you that there is no consensus or unanimous support for this proposal. Why? The problem does not lie in any way with the concept of co-operation. The issue is really one of format.
How can we reconcile the desire for greater co-operation with the Europeans with the goal of achieving a cultural exemption in the comprehensive trade agreement? We believe that we have to clearly distinguish the two issues. The exemption is our primary goal. Canada has to endeavour to negotiate a loophole and weakness-free exemption as well as, if possible, clarification of the exemption as regards the international mechanism. As far as a co-operation agreement is concerned, we support co-operation and we will take part in talks on the development of such an agreement if we are invited to do so. However, this should only be tackled after the main agreement has been signed. Let’s sign the agreement, agree on the exemption and then discuss culture.
If we do decide to go ahead with these talks, do not entrust them to trade officers but rather to cultural experts and officials, who really understand the issues in this field.
One of the issues we have is with the use of the word protocol. The word protocol seems akin to a binding agreement, which some see as implying restriction. It would look like there were two separate conflicting agreements and an attempt to move the discussion to a separate forum.
If I have understood the Quebec proposal properly, it is suggesting generous, open co-operation, exchanges of experts, information and best practices. If this is the case and if the terms of reference are properly defined, it will go some way towards allaying concerns. If we are to do this, let’s do it properly by developing a monitoring mechanism.
As you know a joint committee on audiovisual has existed for a number of years. It has enabled experts and officials from participating countries to… Let’s develop the necessary financial resources as well as a mechanism to monitor the co-operation agreement. A declaration of intent announcing improved co-operation between Canada and the European Union without the necessary multi-year funding might end up being just some vague initiative gathering dust somewhere.
I will conclude here. We believe this is a historic opportunity that Canada must seize. Canada has always shown leadership. The provinces, or at least, Quebec, support the Federal Government on this file. I think that if we develop the right formula and answers to the questions we are asked, Europe will also sign this agreement that includes a cultural exemption.
Thank you.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you Mr. Vallerand.
We have 45 minutes left for questions and comments. We will start with Mr. Rodriguez.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
Mr. Vallerand, Mr. Drapeau, welcome and thank you for being here today.
Does the term “cultural exemption” mean the same thing in Canada as in the various European countries? Are we talking about the same concept and scope? Does it cover the same areas, such as audiovisual, books and music? Does it include a range of items?
3:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
I believe that as has already been mentioned here, the Europeans have a slightly narrower view of the concept as regards to audiovisual. Their take is not as broad or as generous as ours. The committee heard last week that the Europeans have specific positions in the area of books. Therefore, I do not think we can say that we have the same understanding of the concept.
Historically, the European Union has always taken a pretty restrictive view of audiovisual when negotiating agreements or co-operation protocols.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
If we are not even able to agree on what is included, where are these negotiations heading?
3:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
We are moving towards a change in the position of the European Union and its member states. They are not here to confirm this but I feel that it all boils down to an issue of jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction over what? Do the European Union and its negotiators have the authority to negotiate offensively in this area?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
Based on the information I have, this is something they are still discussing within the European Union.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Are you saying that at the same time they are negotiating a free-trade agreement, they are conducting internal discussions to determine who has jurisdiction to negotiate?
3:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
No, not to establish jurisdiction but rather to clarify the mandate or relationship between the European Union and its member states.
3:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
It is significant. However, once again, this is secondhand information. I am not European and I am not privy to their discussions.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
As far as this specific negotiation process is concerned, how can we hope to reach an agreement if we do not really agree on the definition of or what is covered by the cultural exemption?
Canada tends to be more inclusive, which would lead me to believe that we will ask for everything to be included. However, the Europeans will balk at that and there will be negotiations, will there not? Is there any possibility for give and take here?
3:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
Do you think that this issue is more important for the Europeans than for us? It will ultimately come down to who is able to convince the other party to…
As far as I am concerned, Canada has always had a clear, coherent and consistent position. Personally speaking, the Europeans do not currently seem to have a clear, coherent position. They do not have a strong bargaining position. However, this is only a personal observation, which is also the coalition’s view.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
In the final analysis, the negotiations as they pertain to culture have not progressed very far. We had been under the impression that quite a bit had been accomplished.
I questioned the minister about this last week. I asked him to give a general idea of what the negotiations have accomplished in the area of protecting cultural diversity. He gave the following answer:
“Of course, we're at an early stage and there is no complete negotiation yet.”
Personally, given the Conservatives’ traditional position on culture, I have a problem with the minister telling me to “trust him”.
What progress has been made on cultural protection?
3:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
The negotiators are being pretty transparent when they tell you that they have not made much headway. This is because they have made a lot of progress in many other areas. They have focused on specific issues that were not particular showstoppers. You can look at the situation like that also.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
All right.
Just for argument’s sake, let’s imagine that the negotiations are quick and dirty and that the protections are not as strong as in the treaty with the United States.
Could the Americans eventually turn around and say that we did not ask for this type of exemption and that, as a result, they want to review and reopen the agreement?
3:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
There is nothing to indicate that the negotiations will result in anything but a complete exemption. However, we are not there yet... We do not have the wording in front of us today. Consequently, no one can assume the outcome of the negotiation process.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I am going to quote your brief. In it you say the following:
We must hope that Canada’s Governments and civil society will continue to work together to give this new mechanism its full legal and political weight, [...]
What do you mean exactly? What is missing?
3:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Coalition for Cultural Diversity
Merely adopting an international convention does not immediately give it its full weight. The signatories to the Convention are required to implement it and to undertake concrete action.
What do I mean by concrete action? Countries with no or very few cultural policies run the risk of trade agreements or market regulations jeopardizing their cultural expression. Implementation and concrete action means adopting the goals and approach set out in the Convention. Basically, it means activating the Convention and, in so doing, giving it meaning and weight.
As far as international co-operation is concerned, the Convention clearly challenges signatory countries to co-operate with each other. Genuine co-operation between states leads to the development of a robust community, which will have a much stronger voice in multilateral discussions on cultural issues. This is what we need now.
I gave the example of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That Convention gained significance and weight as soon as violations were exposed and concrete action was taken.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
We just have to hope that they do not withdraw us from that too. We signed onto the Kyoto Protocol but they brought us back out of it.