Good morning, everyone.
Evidence of meeting #7 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lobster.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #7 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lobster.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I want to make our interpreters' job easier. I was told to keep this type of microphone at a good distance. Can you confirm that you're able to hear me properly?
November 23rd, 2020 / 11:50 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Christine Lafrance
Yes, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, we can hear you properly.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I want all the stakeholders here today to answer yes or no to my question.
We received only a document that tried to reassure us about what would and wouldn't be in the agreement. However, the document doesn't really go into detail. Several of you commented on whether the agreement is positive.
Do you have more information on the content of the agreement than we do? At this point, we have nothing.
I want each witness to answer yes or no, because I have more questions.
11:50 a.m.
Chair of the Board of Directors, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters Inc.
No.
11:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
We've had discussions with the negotiators. We have not seen the text.
I'd like to emphasize that there have been a number of best practices that have worked well in the past. We are recognizing that negotiators are working under tight timelines. It's important to maintain those best practices. We look forward to continuing to work with them closely in the future.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you for your responses. I appreciate the fact that your presentations often include warnings, expectations, fears and hopes. That said, you'll understand that some elected officials find it rather unusual to have to analyze an agreement when they don't know the content. That's unfortunate.
I'll now turn to Mr. Irvine from the Lobster Council of Canada.
You said that you preferred a permanent agreement rather than a transitional agreement. I want you to explain why you prefer a permanent agreement.
11:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Lobster Council of Canada
For our exporters, it's just having the certainty that we have a multi-year agreement for planning. I think it's just good to have certainty. It's good to know that it's not just a one-off or a one-year agreement.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I gather that, since a transitional agreement is easier to implement, you would support the idea in the short term. Is that right?
11:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Lobster Council of Canada
Absolutely. From our understanding, a rollover was the way to go for the transitional period and then the parties will negotiate a more formal agreement over time.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you.
Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Ms. Citeau, I'll now turn to you.
You said that an agreement is very good because it ensures market access, but that this hasn't been enough in previous agreements. The guarantee in writing hasn't been enough in several respects, and the market has remained closed because of various constraints.
What more could be specified in an agreement if the written text doesn't translate into reality?
11:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
Because of the translation, I'm told to answer in English, even though I could do it in French.
I think with the CETA—and it may related to some of the problems that you are referring to—it's very important to understand that the problems with CETA are not with the text itself, but the EU's reluctance to abide by the commitments and remove barriers, whether it's the timely approval of biotech traits and the need for predictability in science-based processes, or recognition of our farmers' sustainability practices, the approval of beef processing systems, the illegal trade distorting subsidies, and even the illegal country-of-origin labelling in Italy. The problem is with the EU's reluctance to remove the barriers, not the text itself.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
The text itself couldn't be more specific regarding some aspects left in the dark, which have allowed for these practices. However, an agreement in writing guaranteed you access.
11:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
I think if your alluding to whether or not we would simply copy and paste what was in the CETA over to the agreement with the U.K., I think I would defer to our members and the negotiators once they have concluded a full, comprehensive, and ambitious free trade agreement. That is part of the reason why we need to have those conversations and to get to a point that will really address the barriers that we have in Europe.
You will have seen that our beef exporters have commented on the concerns they have with respect to replicating the issues in the U.K. This is exactly what we're commenting on today as well. There are great obstacles encountered in the EU, and also happening with the U.K.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
I want to continue that them of that line of questioning. If the contention is that's there's no problem with the text of the current CETA, but a difference of interpretation, is it our European partners' point of view that they are breaching the text of the agreement, or do they interpret that same text differently?
11:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
I will leave it to them to answer that specific question, but I want to point to the fact that in late October, the Prime Minister, we understand, raised some of our issues with his counterpart as part of the EU-Canada summit. Minister Ng, the same day or the next day, had a meeting with her EU counterpart as well. If you look at the readout, it's clear that the issues that our members face in Europe were raised as well. This is the second time in six months that she has.
