International Trade Committee on March 31st, 2008

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

Do you have any idea what that budget is?

[Per Øystein Vatne]

No, I'm sorry.

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

Is that something you could provide to us?

[Per Øystein Vatne]

I'm not sure if it's public, but if it's public, I will provide you with the information.

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

If there is a worldwide through the international trade ministry of Norway, if those budget documents are available as well for trade promotion, that would be very helpful.

[Per Øystein Vatne]

Yes.

[Nicolas Bruehl]

It's quite similar to the Norwegian. The embassy is acting when there are some specific events. That will be the case now after ratification of the Canada-EFTA agreement. So there will be some events together with the Norwegian and the Iceland colleagues as well. There is some kind of planning. Worldwide, speaking for Switzerland, I can't give you an exact figure, but as the Icelandic ambassador mentioned, with the base of this new agreement there will be then a strengthening as well on this part, I'm sure.

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

I ask that because for Canada our trade promotion budget for all four EFTA countries was $99,000 last year. We're talking about very little in comparative terms, and this has been a historic problem we've seen in Canada right around the world. We're spending very little in trade product promotion, whereas other countries--Australia being just one example, the European Community being another--outspend us 50 to 400 times to 1. Canada has traditionally been very weak in that. Any information you have about how that budget is fixed and what that budget has been up until now in Canada would be very helpful to us.

I'd like to move on to research and development.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You'll have to ask that next round, Mr. Julian. That's eight minutes. We have been courteous.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Maloney.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Vatne, you indicated that there were no plans to reintroduce subsidies on shipbuilding. You abolished subsidies in 2000 and then you temporarily reintroduced them three years later for basically a two-year period. What was the reason they were reintroduced, and do you envisage these situations happening again that may impact this agreement?

[Per Øystein Vatne]

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the EEA agreement, the EEA regulations regarding shipbuilding subsidies are applicable to Norway as a part of the EEA agreement. Until the end of 2000, it was possible for Norwegian shipyards to get 9% of the total value of the contract as a subsidy. With regard to projects below the value of €10 million, the subsidy was 4.5% of the contract value. A precondition in order to receive the subsidy granted was that the ship was ready to be delivered within three years after the contract had been signed. This regime was terminated on December 31, 2000, and the last ship that was granted such a subsidy was delivered on April 30, 2004.

As previously mentioned and as you mentioned, honourable member, the temporary scheme for shipbuilding subsidies of 6% for certain categories of ships was implemented in 2003 in accordance with that EU scheme. The EU scheme was implemented as a result of the case brought by the EU against Korea in the WTO. As was correctly stated, this measure was in effect from March 15, 2003, until March 31, 2005.

We were following an EU measure. What will happen in the future is of course impossible to predict, but we are following the EU. As a member of the EEA, we are quite close to the EU system as such in this respect.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

If in fact you felt you had to reintroduce subsidies, would this trigger any retaliatory measures on the part of Canada?

[Per Øystein Vatne]

I'm sorry, I'm not in a position to answer that question.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

All right.

Mr. Antonsson, you indicated that in your discussions or negotiations with the EU, fisheries policy became problematic, and it would appear that ended the discussions or perhaps helped end the discussions. What was problematic regarding fisheries policy with the EU that would appear not to have been problematic with Canada?

[H.E. Markús Antonsson]

Mr. Chairman, it was the basic question of territorial waters and how we could secure our own 200-mile fishing limits without allowing fishing fleets from other European Union countries to enter the economic zone around Iceland. We are just securing our exclusive rights to exploit the marine resources.

This is also the case with Norway. Norway has not entered the European Union mainly because of the fisheries policy and the preservation of the territorial limits.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

And that's not a problem with us?

[H.E. Markús Antonsson]

No, no.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

I have a question perhaps for all three of you. We seem to have half an agreement, because finances, public procurement, and investment have been left off, perhaps for renegotiating at a subsequent time. Was there any reason for this happening? And are there plans to continue to renegotiate in those areas?

[Nicolas Bruehl]

It's foreseen in the agreement that after three years of ratification there can be further discussions about these issues. At the moment, I don't have the capacity to give you the information about whether that will be the case, but I could imagine, personally, that there is a basis to continue, and if there is interest from both sides, they will go to these issues, I'm sure.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That completes my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Cardin, do you have any questions?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon and welcome, gentlemen.

I do not recall which one of you said that you were involved in the Doha round. Not much is happening on the Doha front at the moment. I imagine some countries are discussing it, given the food and agriculture questions raised in the negotiations.

My question is for all three of you. In the context of the Doha round negotiations, do you think that Canada's supply management constitutes a subsidy, something that should be eliminated?

[H.E. Markús Antonsson]

I mentioned the Doha Round just briefly, because the EFTA ministers of foreign affairs and international trade expressed their concern that this process was slow-going. They had a meeting in Geneva in January. You have been reading this in news releases and communiqués after that meeting. This is in general terms just to underline that there is interest in having these talks become more productive than they are. That is a view we have heard as well here, in the Department of International Trade in Ottawa, that people are aiming to continue these negotiations and want to have them continue.

About the results in individual categories, I'm not able to comment.