Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 15th, 2012

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Certainly in the CETA negotiations for the trade agreement, the dispute resolution section has been under some considerable discussion. To follow up on the dispute resolution, I wonder if you could expand a bit for me what the nature of the dispute resolution section would be in this framework agreement.

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

I'd be happy to. It's very different, obviously, from a free trade agreement where there are much more measurable consequences to actions taken or not taken and where there may even be penalties of a sort. This is a political agreement. Really, it's a matter of discussion and being able to come to agreement where we think there may have been differences in the implementation of various cooperation agreements. It sounds so bureaucratic, doesn't it, John?

I think the process is quite simple. If there were a disagreement with regard to any commitments, let's say with regard to implementation of our cooperation on the ground in a certain region, these would be brought up through the senior officials' channels on the margins of any meetings we were having.

We also have--and this will continue--a joint cooperation committee. This committee meets on an annual basis. It just met this past January. This is really the best avenue to be able to raise, in an environment much like this, any issues of concern with regard to interpretation or application.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Are you trying to get an enforceability mechanism in there?

The reason I raise this point is that we've cited the agreements with Central and South American countries and the fact that there are no teeth to them. There's no way to enforce them. There's no way to bring those governments in line on the supposed commitment to monitor human rights, for example.

I think the framework agreement is an interesting idea. I met with the European delegation when they first came here in the fall. I really am interested in what the enforcement aspect would look like with respect to dispute resolution.

Mr. Kur, do you...?

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

I think the best point to underline is that there isn't anything radically new within the strategic partnership agreement. These are long-standing commitments, high-level dialogues on various issues, that have existed and will continue. We are seeking to strengthen that within the agreement and to perhaps identify potential new areas.

To your point with regard to obligations, most of the obligations undertaken in the strategic partnership agreement really refer to international agreements, so both the EU and Canada are reaffirming their commitment to already existing obligations in the international arena. On human rights, it would be the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

I could provide very few examples of a dispute really being between Canada and the EU. It may be just more of a dialogue about what actions we're taking within the UN Human Rights Council, for example, to ensure that the Universal Periodic Review is being taken seriously by members. It's a qualitative difference between that and, let's say, a commercial agreement.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

If it was a question of one party not upholding its commitment to an international agreement--because it does happen--then is the process of resolving it simply that we'll get together, have a couple of beers or a glass of wine, and sort it out?

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

It's actually a very good question.

The way we would conceive of the process is that if there were concerns on either side, they would be discussed. You're right. Resolution is for the international committees and councils to which we have made those commitments to resolve.

What's very helpful in an agreement such as this is we are two like-minded entities, the EU and its 27 member states and Canada, and we share common values and principles. However, if we had some concerns about the implications of certain actions, we could certainly raise them and make sure that appropriate action was taken through those international channels.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We are going to move over to Mr. Dechert for seven minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your presentation.

I'm just following up, in a minor way, the questions raised by Mr. Chisholm.

There has been a lot of confusion between the comprehensive economic and trade agreement and this strategic partnership agreement. Some people get confused and link the two things together. I'm wondering if you could clarify for us the difference between the two agreements, tell us if the agreements are dependent on one another, and explain how the negotiations were carried out in a way that avoided overlap between those two agreements.

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

You are right. There is sometimes a degree of confusion. They are very different. They are completely separate negotiations and separate agreements. The comprehensive cconomic and trade agreement, obviously, is on commercial matters related to trade and investment. The strategic partnership agreement is focused solely on political cooperation, most of that within international fora such as the UN, the G-8, or the G-20.

We are seeking very carefully, as I said in my statement, to avoid any overlaps with any agreement, including the CETA. It's a principle of good legal practice to make sure there is no difficulty in interpreting our various commitments and no ambiguity. I would say that although they are being negotiated at the same time, there is no direct linkage. They are separate agreements that will run the course on separate tracks.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

If there's eventually a dispute under that trade agreement, in the event that it's completed, signed, and ratified, that dispute would not be reconciled under the strategic partnership agreement. Presumably, that trade agreement will have its own dispute resolution.

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

In the Canadian position, there should be no linkage, because that has been carefully negotiated. There will be a separate dispute settlement mechanism for the CETA, which should be respected.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I recognize there are lots of different member states in the European Union. I know that Canada has expressed some concern about the extent to which this strategic partnership agreement with the EU could affect bilateral agreements that currently exist between Canada and all of those member states.

Have these concerns been addressed? Can you give us an example of how they have been addressed?

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

You are speaking more about the overlap between member states and EU competencies.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

That's correct, yes.

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

It's actually very interesting that you should raise this issue, because we're seeing some discomfort on the side of our EU colleagues. This is evolving even as we speak and ever since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. That division of responsibilities and powers between the EU and member states is still being sorted out. Often during the negotiations, when we try to get some clarity about how this impacts on member states of the EU, they are not even able to respond. That is part of the legal scrub we're going to have to take on at the end of this process.

Generally it's considered to be a mixed agreement, and the EU, as the institution, has a competency. It does have consultations with member states, but ultimately it will be the EU that will sign on behalf of itself and of the 27 member states.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

To the extent that there's a conflict between a current existing bilateral agreement between Canada, and say, the U.K., and this strategic partnership agreement, which one takes precedence?

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

Again, the Canadian position is very clear. We see each of these agreements as being stand-alones. We would say they should be respected insofar as their competencies. We would like to ensure the strategic partnership agreement is enabling, but also that it does not have any overreaching power into other agreements. I think that just creates uncertainty and ambiguity.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Very good. Thank you very much.

I don't have any other questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Why don't I go back over to Mr. Eyking, then?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

I think it's great that we have a better relationship with Europe. It's our original trade partner from way back. Sometimes it's very difficult when you are negotiating. They have ten times our population, similar to the U.S., and going into these meetings, you're wondering who is the dog and who is the tail here.

I notice you stressed this high degree of like-mindedness that we have with Europe. I've been to Europe many times. I've been to Brussels. There is definitely quite a bit of difference in philosophy, especially between the Conservative government and the European Union. The Prime Minister even stated, on that case, that we have to make sure Canada fights against becoming a European-style state and things like that. When we deal with foreign affairs issues, even an Israel-Palestine issue, we're totally different from the Europeans. Then, when you come down to agriculture, I don't know how we're going to bridge the protectionism and the subsidies that they have in Europe. Then we come to fisheries issues. Even a simple thing like selling shrimp to Europe has all these tariffs on it.

I know I'm throwing a bunch of things at you. I'm optimistic that we could have some sort of mutual agreement. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the trade that we have with the United States?

The present government is not philosophically the same as Europe. I want you to comment on that. How do we get by all these other things I've mentioned? How do we get past that when we are sitting around a table doing negotiations?

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

It's an extremely fair comment, and you can appreciate that I may not be able to go into the details of government positions with regards to certain relations with certain countries.

I think the devil is in the details. When I speak about like-mindedness, it really is on those larger shared values, whether it is the promotion of human rights and freedoms, promotion of democracy, or combatting terrorism and organized crime. The details are where sometimes the approaches can differ, and that's where the dialogue actually comes in.

That's where we really need to be able to have that exchange, and we need to have it not in a public forum, but with the ability to speak very openly and frankly, and hopefully come out of that--not all of the time, but hopefully more often than not--with some agreed direction and consensus. There will always....

These are 27 member states; even within the EU, as you've seen, there are huge differences in opinions and approaches on many policies. It's at that very high level of shared values and principles--ones that we've fought wars over, ones on which we have actually developed the international machinery to maintain and to promote as standards--that I speak of like-mindedness.

However, you're exactly right. There are some irritants and some very real differences.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I remember that when we were doing some things with the United States, it was pretty hard even to get to some of the congressmen and senators down there. How are we doing with the European delegation and the European parliamentarians? How are they engaged? Is it even on their radar screen?

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

That's exactly why the strategic partnership agreement is so important. Being able to be identified by the EU as a strategic partner, to have them recognize not only the long-standing but the future possibilities and potential for cooperation, is extremely important. This is, despite the current vicissitudes in Europe, a major power, economically as well as politically, and one that we need to deal with in NATO, the G-8, and the G-20.

It's very useful for you as parliamentarians, as you're engaging with either members of the European Parliament or the national parliaments, to emphasize and to welcome that recognition of the long-standing relationship as a strategic one.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I have two more quick questions.

One is dealing with foreign aid. It seems to me that we're going in a little different step from the Europeans in dealing with Africa and in pushing more for public-private partnerships. Europe doesn't seem to be at that.

My second question is dealing with the other Europe, outside the European Union box. There are other countries that are not in the European Union. Can you comment? There are still quite a few countries that are not in our circle. How are we dealing with those countries?

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

I'm feeling rather chagrined that I brought John along all this way and haven't allowed him to speak, so if you wouldn't mind, I may ask you to speak to that.