International Trade committee  Yes, they were--

International Trade committee  I think that's an excellent question, and for the first time in the Canada-EU negotiations, the provinces are directly represented at the negotiating table, as you note. I don't know what the exact provisions of that treaty will be with regard to provincial compliance, but I do believe that provincial and territorial governments, and the federal government itself, have a very strong interest, particularly if these types of investment protection provisions and investor-state dispute settlements are to be included in CETA, as it seems likely they will be, to ensure that these broadly worded, open-ended vague notions of, for example, expropriation and other issues related with the interpretation of these investment rights by various arbitrators and arbitration panels are clarified.

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. The constitutional dimensions of this issue relate to the prospect that the federal government, rather than acting simply as the signatory of the NAFTA, assumes responsibility for whatever fines or awards are levied in relation to NAFTA chapter 11 when provincial or territorial measures breach this treaty.

International Trade committee  I entirely agree with that analysis. Just in terms of the basic propriety or rightness of this settlement going solely to the investor and disregarding these other legitimate claims—as you've said, just stepping back from them—is, on the face of it, an unbalanced and inappropriate use of taxpayers' money.

International Trade committee  Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee again. The AbitibiBowater settlement raises many serious concerns, and I will briefly address three. First, AbitibiBowater was compensated in part for the loss of water and timber rights on public lands.

International Trade committee  Again, I think there has to be a dose of reality here. We didn't make any significant inroads. The U.S. did not make any significant concessions, despite the major effort and high priority that Canada put on this deal. This is not a new story. There were additional negotiations under the WTO, the government procurement agreement at the sub-federal level, and under NAFTA at the sub-federal level.

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. I would be very concerned, given the price, the steep price, we paid for very little result in these further negotiations, as I said before. The one thing to note about this agreement with the United States is that it did not require any congressional approval.

International Trade committee  Thank you. That's a very good question. I think this is an important point: the GPA rules, and in fact even the temporary arrangements--and I think this is an important point--ban what they call offsets. Basically, offsets are when governments, procuring, go out to negotiate with suppliers for local benefits, like the 60% local content in the wind energy contracts negotiated by Quebec Hydro.

International Trade committee  There are different forms of litigation under this agreement. The provinces, as far as the WTO GPA commitments are concerned, have agreed to set up what's called a domestic review process under our own domestic law, so every province would have to give suppliers who are covered by this agreement the ability to launch a bid challenge procedure.

International Trade committee  No, the Europeans are in the same situation basically as Canadian suppliers. Actually, you might argue that before we signed this deal we were in a slightly better position than the Europeans, who are now, at the WTO, trying to back out of certain of the commitments they made under the GPA towards the United States.

International Trade committee  Just quickly, there are no enforceable legal safeguards in this agreement that would protect Canada or even insulate it from Buy American preferences in future legislation. The proof of that pudding will be in the eating very soon in the Jobs for Main Street Act, which has Buy American preferences.

International Trade committee  I have to say, as someone who's followed procurement policy for 20 years, that I was somewhat taken aback at the reaction in Canada to the Buy American preferences in the recovery act. They are a long-standing feature of U.S. policy. They have systematically excluded them from most of their international trade treaty obligations.

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. I think there's one clear lesson from this experience and the steep price we paid in this deal for very little relief from the Buy American preferences that have been in place for a long time, although they were intensified under the recovery act. The lesson is that we should be looking at a fresh approach, as Teresa alluded to.

International Trade committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Thank you for the invitation to appear today and for the opportunity to discuss the February 2010 Canada-U.S. government procurement agreement. The Canada-U.S. government procurement agreement, which I'll refer to from now on in my remarks as “the agreement”, in my view fails to provide a meaningful exemption for Canadian suppliers from the Buy American provisions employed in the February 2009 U.S. stimulus package, the recovery act.

International Trade committee  Sure, thank you. In terms of provisions that we would not want to adopt from the U.S.-Korea agreement, the intellectual property rights provisions that I refer to, data exclusivity and so-called linkage provisions--I know those are complicated terms—that would push up the price of drugs, are driven by the brand name manufacturers mainly based in the United States.