Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 20 - Evidence - Meeting of March 30, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 30, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to which was referred Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, met this day at 10:33 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is today meeting to examine Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.
We have before us today the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of International Trade. He is accompanied by officials, and I will leave him to introduce them. I know that there are other officials in the room, should we need them.
Minister, thank you for coming today, and congratulations on your appointment. We did send you a letter, but we are now formally indicating our congratulations for a very important post in the government — international trade — and one that is particularly important to this committee, as we've been following trade issues for quite a few years. We're eager to get going on Bill C-30.
Thank you for coming, also, on a week that you are not sitting. I know you had already made other commitments, but you responded to my request. We want to deal with this bill efficiently and quickly, and you kindly consented to come today.
Welcome to the committee. I'm not going to say any more opening remarks. We have a short time with the minister, so I want to be sure that we hear the minister and that we have time for questions.
Minister, welcome to the committee. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne, P.C., M.P., Minister of International Trade: Thank you, Madam Chair, for having me today.
[English]
It's really an honour to be in front of you. I do appreciate the work the Senate has been doing on what I think is a great day for Canada. This is a great moment in our history. It's a great time, especially when we're looking at the CETA agreement. I must say, madam chair, having been on the road for the last almost 30 days in a row, Canada stands out in the world, and for the right reason. Our progressive trade agenda is making trade real for people around the world. It has been applauded and it's my honour to be with you. This is a whole-of-Canada effort, and I very much appreciate being able to testify before you.
[Translation]
Accompanying me today are Louise Laflamme and Sandra LaFortune.
[English]
Steve Verheul, I think, needs no introduction. Denis Martel and Matthew Smith will be the officials.
As you said, madam chair, there are a number of other officials with me to answer your questions. The purpose here, obviously, is to answer any and all questions you may have in order to proceed with due process, but expeditiously, to the ratification of the agreement, because any day for me is an important day to make sure that we can have more trade, because trade means growth, and growth means jobs. This is a great instrument to facilitate that.
I'll just make a few official remarks, madam chair, if you would allow me, and then we'll be happy to take your questions.
[Translation]
I am pleased to appear before the committee today to discuss the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The government strongly believes in a global economy that is open to the free flow of goods, services and investment, and we are proud to have taken a leadership role in promoting a progressive trade agenda.
[English]
Not only is this the right thing to do; it is absolutely essential to our prosperity and economic well-being now and over the long term. With our relatively small domestic market, the success of the Canadian economy and our world- class Canadian companies are closely linked to our ability to trade with other countries.
Canada has always been a trading nation, and that trade has helped us build this country into a top 10 global economy, with the world's thirtieth-largest population. In other words, when I'm elsewhere in the world, I say Canada represents about 0.5 per cent of the world's population and about 2.2 or 2.3 per cent of world trade. So trade is essential for Canadians to prosper.
We know that trade raises living standards and increases prosperity, something that this committee understands very well, as trade represents 60 per cent of Canada's annual gross domestic product. We also know that trade helps companies grow, and when companies grow and succeed, they create new jobs. These jobs, madam chair, I would say are found across our nation. Obviously, the Senate represents regions. I come from a rural riding, and I must say that when I look at CETA, this is an instrument that will help lift all regions of the country to prosperity, and to create the jobs we need in our country.
Indeed, one out of every six Canadian jobs is tied to exports. But we cannot be complacent and we must redouble our efforts to make the case I have just outlined to people who depend on trade for their livelihood and future prosperity. We need to make sure that the benefits accrued over the years not only show up in statistics but are felt by the middle class and those working hard to join it. In other words, the Prime Minister of Canada has asked me to make trade real for people, which means opportunities for exporters, better and more diversified products for consumers and, obviously, jobs for Canadians. So together, we need to make trade real for people.
[Translation]
And that is why we need trade agreements like CETA. With CETA, we have found the formula for doing trade the right way — the way that creates inclusive growth through progressive trade. CETA was informed by consultations with a broad range of stakeholders and contains strong provisions in the areas of labour and the environment. The agreement recognizes the right of governments to regulate in the public interest.
In short, CETA is an agreement that works for businesses and citizens alike and that ensures that benefits of a more open global trading environment are more widely shared.
[English]
CETA will deepen a long-standing relationship with a partner with whom we all know share common values. CETA is absolutely the right deal at the right time, and I must applaud those who had the vision more than a decade ago to think that we could achieve something like that. It's easy to say, and I've repeated it many times: This is really the right deal at the right time. It will help to generate much-needed jobs and growth for the middle class and those working hard to join it.
CETA is the most ambitious and progressive trade agreement ever negotiated by Canada or the European Union, and the economic benefits for Canada are, as I'm sure you will all agree, undeniable.
I must tell you, Madam Chair, as I've travelled the world, CETA is referred to as the gold standard. Everywhere I've been, people have referred to CETA and the provisions in CETA, the progressive elements in CETA, the approach we have adopted in CETA and the consultation we have done through CETA as the way forward for nations.
[Translation]
The European Union is Canada's second-largest trading partner and the second-largest importing market in the world for goods, with annual imports that are worth more than Canada's GDP. With CETA, Canadian exporters of goods and services will have unprecedented preferential access to a market of more than 500 million consumers. It is also a key market in the global supply chain with more Fortune 500 companies than any other market in the world. So this is a great opportunity that may fulfill the world-class ambitions of many small-and medium-sized businesses in Canada.
[English]
With CETA fully implemented, 99 per cent of the more than 9,000 tariff lines will be duty-free for Canadian goods. That is the message, Madam Chair, that I repeat to small- and medium-sized businesses everywhere I go in Canada. There are enormous opportunities for Canadian businesses ahead of us.
CETA will also provide Canadian services, suppliers and companies bidding on government procurement contracts with the best access the EU has ever given to any trading partner in a free trade agreement.
The agreement also includes the most ambitious commitments on temporary entry that the EU has ever agreed to. CETA provides for increased freedom of movement for Canadian business persons to move across borders, making it easier for business to be conducted in the EU. This offers our companies tremendous opportunities and a real competitive edge because many of our key competitors do not have a free trade agreement in place with Europe.
CETA is also an important tool in our plan to create high-paying jobs to increase investment in Canada. With CETA, Canada will be better positioned than ever to be an international hub for producers, manufacturers and exporters of both goods and services.
As the most modern and progressive trade agreement ever negotiated by Canada, CETA's benefits go far beyond tariff elimination and improve market access. It strongly enshrines labour, consumer and environmental rights, as well as the role of public services and the right of governments to regulate in the public interest. It also introduces a new and more independent approach to investment protection and dispute resolution.
These progressive elements are important, as they help to ensure that trade that is so crucial to our economy is inclusive and not conducted at the expense of Canadian values. With CETA, Canada and the EU are setting the standard for free trade agreements of the future.
In conclusion, Madam Chair, I hope all members of this committee will support this agreement that will allow our economy to grow while upholding our high standards for workers, consumers, and the environment and creating good jobs for Canadians.
If I may say, Madam Chair, as I conclude, this is throughout Canada. Whether you live on the East Coast and work in the fisheries, whether you work in the manufacturing sector in Quebec and Ontario, whether you're in natural resources in the West or you're in B.C., everyone will benefit. This is a game-changer for our economy.
I appreciate the time you've given me in front of the Senate this morning. I'm happy to take your questions.
The Chair: Minister, thank you for your opening statements. I know you have a limited time. I'm just not quite sure how much time we have.
Mr. Champagne: I'm just going to do an announcement in Montreal after, Madam Chair, so I'm not the best one to tell you. But I'm told I should have shaken hands before, which I did, rather than after, to make sure I won't have my provincial counterparts waiting too long. I don't know exactly, but I think the officials will know better how much time. I was told an hour in total.
The Chair: We'll target for about an hour. I have a long list. Part of my asking the question is to alert all senators that I do have a list, so if you can make your questions crisp, everyone will get a chance to put their questions forward.
The officials, I take it, will stay, and we can then get into the more technical parts of issue. The questions now would be on policy and other issues, of course, for the minister.
Senator Downe: I'll try to be crisp and try not to be too crusty as well.
Minister, there has been criticism that with regard to a number of the trade deals we have signed, our trade balance has actually deteriorated after we signed them as opposed to the year before we agreed to them. As you know, there are contrary views on these agreements. The former co-CEO of BlackBerry, Jim Balsillie, has commented publicly recently in the media, and I'll quote him. I'd like your views on the view that he's articulating. He said:
Our leading economic experts continue to offer policy strategies that have no bearing on the 21st-century economy. In 2016, the Governor of the Bank of Canada called the removal of trade tariffs "top of the list as a policy move.'' Canada currently has 14 free-trade agreements — 10 more than it did a decade ago — yet, our export volumes are shrinking. Canada doesn't have valuable IP to sell to the world so we continue exporting low- margin resource and agricultural goods while importing high-margin IP. If our leaders want to create sustainable economic growth, Canada's growth strategy must focus on creating high-margin IP-based exports that the world wants and must pay for.
What's your response to that vis-à-vis the importance of this trade deal?
Mr. Champagne: First of all, I'd say thank you, senator. I'm happy that you're referring to at least one in particular that I think is the free trade agreement between Canada and Korea. I saw the numbers recently going down, and I spoke to my counterpart to say that obviously we need to change the dynamic with respect to that.
With respect to Mr. Balsillie's comments, which I appreciate because, as you know, we do consult widely, I take a different view. What we're selling today, the traditional thing between goods and services is changing now because goods become intangible and migrate to IP, so I am well aware of Mr. Balsillie's comment, and I welcome his input because obviously he's been very successful.
The thing I would say, however, senator, is that engaging with SMEs across the nation, as we will be doing — and I would hope the Senate would play a part in explaining the benefit of CETA to our citizens across the nation. But when I think of a market of 510 million people and a public procurement of $3.3 trillion per year, I just believe that the prize for Canadian companies is enormous. We need to focus. You saw in the last budget that we did take measures that I think are going to help our SMEs, the focus being to increase exports.
If you saw in our 2017 budget, it was about training and innovation. Those are the two key elements. When I crisscross the country, people talk to me about human capital. I think we've dealt with the first one, which is to make sure we have the right training for our people but then focus on innovation and have all faith in Canadian companies in innovation.
This afternoon I'll be with one of them in the aerospace sector, which is very innovative and which I think is the type of company that will benefit from preferential access to markets in Europe. While we consider all views, I think you would agree with me overall, senator, that people in the region you represent will be benefiting from CETA.
Senator Downe: Thank you, minister. You're correct about Korea. The year before we signed the free trade agreement, our trade deficit was $3.1 billion. Last year it was $6.2 billion. There's also Honduras. The year before we signed a free trade agreement with them, our trade balance was a $191 million deficit. It was $313 million in 2016. With Costa Rica, the year before we signed the trade agreement, the trade deficit was $126 million, and it is $364 million in 2016. And Mexico was $2.9 billion, and last year it was $2.25 billion. I could go on and on. This is information from Industry Canada.
My last question concerns another part of the trade deal. As we all know, trade deals are a matter of give and take, and one of the things Canada appeared to give up was lifting the visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania. I'm just wondering what the increased risks for Canadians are because those security environments were removed. I know you're not the minister responsible, but there may be officials with you who can answer this.
Mr. Champagne: I appreciate it. Thank you, senator.
I take your point about the trade deals. I'm not sure you can make a correlation between trade agreements and the numbers you quoted. This is what I've been taking on very much in my role with trade promotions. Some journalists have called me the chief marketing officer of Canada, and I do spend quite a bit of my time marketing Canadian goods and services. You mentioned a number of countries where I think we can do better. Senator, trust me; every morning when I wake up, I look in the mirror and say, "What can I do to improve these numbers?''
Coming to the visa requirement, as you said, the Minister of Immigration would probably be better placed than me. But let me say for the record that there is no direct link between that issue and CETA. Visa policy, as you know, is not part of CETA and this is a separate issue.
The visa issue for both those countries has been an ongoing discussion for some time, and we're pleased that both countries are willing to work with immigration officials to make the required policy adjustments on their end to allow us to lift the visa requirement.
I think it's fair to say — and you would expect that from me, senator — that part of my job is to ensure removal of trade irritants between nations, and certainly this has been a long-lasting one. I think it is good news that we can move forward in our bilateral relationship.
Chair, for the record, I want to say this has never been about security. This is about straining our immigration system for asylum seekers. I don't think we can raise the issue of security because all the safeguards and provisions are in place that have allowed for the partial lifting in May 2017 and full lifting on December 1, 2017 as long as conditions are met by the other side, and they understand that well. I want to make sure that Canadians understand this has never been about security, but it has been about making sure that we maintain the integrity of our asylum process in Canada and about immigration issues.
Senator, I'm sure you appreciate removing trade irritants, and I do that on a daily basis. I think it is good news for Canadians that we were able to put a system in place with conditions that would be beneficial to both nations.
Senator Downe: I appreciate you're not the minister responsible, but I would argue it's directly related. The Prime Minister personally called the leaders of these two countries, assuring them that if they supported CETA, the visas would be lifted. There's a direct connection. Romanian and Bulgarian parliamentarians have told me that. It has been in the European media as well. They did not qualify for visa lifting. Suddenly they were lifted when CETA was on the line. It's part of the trade-off, and I understand that, but we'll pursue that with the appropriate ministers.
The Chair: I think at this point I have to redefine "crisp'' into "short.''
Senator Housakos assures me he has a short supplementary.
Senator Housakos: Senator Downe has the propensity to evaluate the success of a trade agreement based on it having a surplus in terms of trade. Minister, are there other barometers that would also deem a trade agreement as successful, besides a surplus or deficit?
Mr. Champagne: I appreciate your question. It is a good question.
Obviously there are many other measures of that. As we're going in this process with respect to CETA and making real trade for people, you will see that in the job numbers obviously. But I think it's making it real for consumers, better choice for consumers, and that should translate into better prices to consumers.
This is about making sure that we diversify, senator. I'm sure you would appreciate, at this particular moment in our trade history, that diversification for Canadians is key.
Sometimes when I'm on the road, I look at Canada as the bridge between the Atlantic and Pacific. When I pitch the Canada brand, I say to people around the world, look at Canada as the bridge between these two. Obviously the envy of the world, senator, is that we have achieved this milestone with the EU. To have preferential market access is, in my view, a game-changer for our nation.
As you know, we are very much dependent on trade with our southern neighbour and friends. I think it is good news that we can build upon that, but this is a whole-of-Canada effort with the house but also the Senate. As elected officials and as senators and as Canadians, we all have a role to make sure Canadians understand the benefit that will come with respect to trade, and trade starts with people-to-people relationships. With Europe, not only do we share values but a common history in many respects. I think that this is the way we're going to demonstrate to the ratification process in Europe that trade has been beneficial to people.
This is what I've been saying, and I think you'll hear the EU commissioner is very much focused on making trade real for people.
Senator Marwah: Thank you, minister, for coming today. I must admit that I am very supportive of the agreement and I congratulate you for getting it to this point. It is a very positive step forward. But as you know, in every trade agreement there are winners and there are losers. There are some sectors that are clearly hurt by trade, and hence we need to have something to transition them to a better place, so to speak.
I'd like your views on the provisions and safeguards you have for these sectors, and in addition to having them, how do you know they're adequate and how do you know they're working?
Mr. Champagne: Thanks for your question. Running an open and transparent government and one that consults, and obviously we have been consulting with industry, two come to mind when it comes to CETA. I can talk about our dairy producers — coming from a rural riding, I have a number of them in my own backyard — and the fisheries industry on the Eastern Seaboard.
With respect to the dairy industry, a colleague has put a program in place of $350 million to help the industry to innovate and be more efficient, understanding that there will be market opportunities in Europe, and we want our dairy producers to seize that moment.
And there will be incoming cheese from Europe, if that's where you were going. We know the quota that we've given has been phased over five years. We know that the growth in the market is about 1 per cent a year. So this is probably going to largely offset the quotas that will be entering Canada.
With respect to the fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador, as you know, there is a fund in the Atlantic region to deal with fisheries issues. Again, this is about efficiency and making sure that we modernize and prepare our exporters to benefit from these opportunities.
When I was in London, I used the lobster example, which somehow became famous in some of the papers there. The Sun put that on their front page. I was saying lobster, which is a staple in Europe sometimes during Christmas, exported today has an import duty of up to 25 per cent. On day one that would go down to zero. I was trying to illustrate to consumers in Europe the benefit of free trade and CETA for them.
We have put these measures in place, senator, to make sure our industry can innovate, can be efficient to seize the opportunity of an increasing consumer market, the largest consumer market for food products being Europe.
Senator Marwah: Is there any process in place to make sure over time this is working, that these people are benefiting from it? The worry I have is that we put these programs in place and we think everything is fine, as opposed to tracking and measuring it over time and making sure those safeguards are helping the people they're intended to help.
Mr. Champagne: We will continue to listen to all stakeholders. We have done that to reach the point where we are with CETA, with provinces and territories. As you would expect, they are looking at me, in particular, to engage with them on an ongoing basis.
As I say, I come from a particular part of our country which has a lot of dairy farmers. I meet them, I would say, almost every weekend when I go home. I'm reminded of their concerns and the opportunities they see in CETA. We will be engaging.
To your point, senator, we want to make sure that this is a success story for all Canadians. We will be listening. These programs have been announced. The program needs to be defined, but we want to make sure that they do generate the outcomes that were set forth, basically giving our industry the tools to succeed and compete successfully with this increased market access.
Senator Munson: Congratulations, minister, on your appointment. I want like to explore more on that. You said three or four times that you come from a rural riding that was once represented by a prime minister. Rural Canada should not be left behind. You talk about seeing dairy producers every weekend. There are big numbers we are talking about.
Instead of talking to politicians today, I'd like you to talk to people in your rural riding and other ridings of how you see CETA working, specifically to give us some examples, if this all works, in terms of jobs that will take place in rural Quebec and in the rest of the country. Do you have a vision? Is there a plan that will increase employment in the dairy industry? Because it is scary for them; the unintended consequences of what may be good for Europe may not be good for Canada. Can you take a good hard look and tell those who live in rural ridings, yes, you will benefit and how?
Mr. Champagne: Senator, thanks for the question.
You're quite right. Coming from a rural riding with a number of dairy producers, let me take the example of FX Pichet, which is in my riding. This is a cheese producer that has won numerous awards in Canada and around the world. As you know, the $350 million announced by my colleague Minister MacAulay was split into $250 million, which would go to farm equipment and milking technologies, and $100 million for innovative dairy processing. I would hope to work with them to make sure that these investments in plant and equipment would allow them to access the primary consumer market for these products in Europe.
I just came back from Dubai where I was attending the Gulfood fair, one of the largest fairs in the world. I can report back to you that Canada Brand has never been better in the world. Food safety — people look at Canadian products in a very favourable way. The clients of those which were present at this fair, which attracted 35,000 people, just the magnitude of the number, I was told that the people gathering around the Canada booth has never been bigger. Food safety is a big thing in the world, and I would hope through the measures we've put in place now that our cheese producers will be able to export in Europe and benefit from this market access which is not present today because of the import duty.
The challenge that you're putting on us, which I take, is to work with small- and medium-sized farming communities to make sure these programs are leading to the results you would expect. Because what we want to see and why we have been able to negotiate free market access in Europe is to give them a chance to do more.
I have some numbers. I was told that the growth in cheese, for example, the growth in market, is about 1 per cent a year. As you know, the access we've given to Europe is over five years.
The reduction would probably outpace the growth you see in the market. In terms of having more cheese coming in, that shouldn't really be a concern. The big prize for us is having our producers take the opportunity they have now to export in Europe.
Senator Munson: Yesterday we heard the concerns and worry about the U.K. Does this free trade agreement in any way jeopardize our strong trading relationship with a traditional trading partner like the United Kingdom? There is a tremendous worry with Canadian companies that you can't have it both ways.
Mr. Champagne: Not at all. I have already met with Dr. Liam Fox three times since I've been appointed. Obviously the U.K. is our largest trading partner within Europe, and through provisional application, Canada and the U.K. will have a free trade agreement. They have been one of the strongest proponents in the EU with regard to CETA. Dr. Fox reaffirmed their commitment to have that ratified in the British Parliament during the next few months, so there will be a free trade agreement with the U.K.
I have said publicly that we do recognize we want that trade relationship to be maintained. Our officials, although they cannot negotiate formally, there has been discussions between our officials. I met Dr. Fox recently at the Commonwealth meeting of trade ministers in London to make sure something which is going well should continue.
We want to offer predictability, stability. We understand it is in both nations' best interests. We share common values and, in some respects, a common history, so certainly we are committed, as the Prime Minister reiterated yesterday, that we will let them do their process. We want the good trading relationship to continue after they finish their process with Europe. I can assure you, senator, that that's something we're looking at very carefully.
Senator Woo: Minister, thank you for your testimony. I wanted to ask you a high-level question about the politics of the deal, particularly in the EU. As you know, there are reports about our Belgium friends in Wallonia potentially holding up the deal on the EU side. There is the bigger question of elections across Europe. We had one in Holland already, one in France coming up and Germany. Could you say a bit about the importance of this deal in promoting the kind of Liberal open trading order that Canada supports and wants to advance in the world and how this may or may not serve that cause both in the European Union and in the broader international trading community?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator. That's a very good question. As you know, the ratification process in Europe has started. Latvia was first. I had promised the EU ambassadors in Ottawa that I would visit the three first countries, so there is a small competition going on. I am told that Estonia is not too far, Lithuania, Denmark maybe soon and others. We're following that on a daily basis to make sure that this process is going well.
I'm in regular contact with the EU commissioner to be as helpful as possible on behalf of Canada. Obviously we have to do our own processes, but we want to be helpful not only with politicians but with the Chamber of Commerce and stakeholders in Europe.
Senator, in a world of uncertainty and predictability, of questioning about the rule-based order that we built in the trading system since the Second World War, the world, when I travel on behalf of Canada, is telling me they were relieved to see that Canada and Europe would bring a strong voice in the world, a different voice, a voice which talks about stability, predictability, a rules-based system, a system that values diversity and inclusiveness, which has progressive elements around the environment, workers' rights, the right of states to legislate in the public interest, and innovative approaches with respect to investor state dispute settlements.
Senator, the world is looking at us now to lead. The CETA agreement, I can assure you — and I've been at a number of meetings already. People are saying, "Well, let's refer back to CETA. Let's go back to the provisions in CETA in different fora. Why don't we use CETA as a base and see what you guys have achieved?''
It's the best way that Canada can lead in the world. We have a trade agenda that reflects our values, and that's why people want to do business with Canada, I think. Clearly, we are an important player in the world. Honestly, a lot of people were saying that what Canada and Europe have achieved is we're leading in that sense and people wanted that voice to be heard. We believe, as Canada, in open trade, and I stated that in another forum just recently in Chile. We believe that trade can be an element of good in the world and that it can help raise standards.
What we put in CETA is applauded by many. I was with the Prime Minister in Europe when we were at Strasbourg. Then we went to Berlin and Hamburg, and people applauded that. I'm happy to say that if we can lead the world in a positive and value-based system of trade, thanks, and the world is looking at Canada and Europe to complete that as quickly as possible.
Senator Woo: Would you comment on my specific question about the risk that Wallonia might hold up the EU ratification process as a whole?
Mr. Champagne: As you know, there are two provisional applications, which we are expecting in the spring. Ninety- nine per cent of all the tariff lines and everything that is economically significant between our two nations would come into force. Certain elements of the agreement will not.
The EU is 28 nations plus 10 sub-nationals, so it's 38 for ratification. It will take some time. You may recall that the EU-Korea free trade agreement took about four years to be ratified, if my numbers are correct.
I think that the best way we can show Walloons and others is to make trade with their people. When people see the numbers and that small businesses today are having better market access, consumers in Europe are having more choices and that this has translated into more jobs and prosperity, I think we're going to win the argument, because this is about making trade real for people.
So there might be a political discourse, but at the end of the day, this agreement is for people. This is for workers, consumers and exporters. Our engagement is really to show that this is beneficial, and I am convinced that we'll succeed in convincing people this is the right thing to do.
The Chair: I have a long list of people. Senator Mockler is next.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: Thank you very much, minister. I am from New Brunswick. I would like to come back to the question raised by Senator Munson.
[English]
One of the few matters actually known since yesterday is that the process has begun but Article 50 has never been acted on before, and there are a lot of unknowns and it's alarming. On the weekend I had some companies in New Brunswick asking me this, minister, and I would like it if you could give us an update on Britain and the EU and countries like Canada that deal with both Britain and the EU. The major question for Canadian companies who have used London or still use London as a base to do business with Britain and access the continent is what our status will be with the EU and what rules will govern trade relations with the remaining EU countries and Britain and Canadians. Canadians and companies want to know this now.
[Translation]
Mr. Champagne: Thank you for the question. When it comes to our relationship with the European Union and England, as I mentioned, I have met with Liam Fox three times. Our position has always been that there will be a free trade agreement between Canada and Europe and, of course, England, with the agreement's provisional application. We recognize that this trade relationship is beneficial to both sides. That is our largest trade partner in Europe. We are currently doing everything we can — in other words, our representatives have begun informal discussions with our British colleagues. I believe that is the best thing to do right now. There will be a free trade agreement, and our entrepreneurs, our small-and medium-sized businesses, must be reassured. What I said, and what the Prime Minister reiterated yesterday, is that we are very aware of the trade relationship between Canada and England, and we want that trade relationship to continue, and even flourish, in a sense. When the time comes, we will take actions to ensure stability and predictable rules.
You can reassure the people of New Brunswick. We are working together and according to the rules established based on European rules. However, we are holding informal discussions with our British partners, as that is in their interest, but also in the interest of Canadian businesses.
Senator Gold: Welcome, minister.
[English]
The dispute resolution provisions have attracted a lot of discussion and controversy, especially with respect to investor relations. Are you satisfied that the innovations in this act go far enough to protect the legitimate Canadian governmental interests in regulating in the public interest?
Mr. Champagne: The answer is yes. I think the world is looking at that, senator, the innovation that we've put forward with respect to the government right to regulate to achieve legitimate purpose in the health and safety areas.
There are two aspects. There are the substantive provisions which recognize things that are dear to Canada and the European Union, and there are also the procedural aspects with respect to the creation of an appellate body and the independence of those who will be sitting on these panels. I think that there is still some work to be done with respect to that. We've said to our European counterparts that we'll be continuing to work with them. But it's about transparency, efficiency, impartial resolution, justice and the appearance of justice. I think we have improved significantly the type of dispute-settlement mechanism that exists.
I can tell you, senator, this is one of the clauses that many nations in the world are looking at. We have also committed with the European Union to be speaking around the world about the multi-investment court that could be hosted. We're making some progress. I spoke about that concept with a number of nations. I think it's getting more and more attention.
I think yes, I'm happy, and I think this might become over time something that you'll see more and more in trade agreements around the world.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being with us. I applaud you for looking at this to be a success story for all Canadians, one that reflects our values and the values you said you're upholding, and of course Canadian values include culture. We all know how successful the former Trade Routes programs were with regard to the exports of cultural goods and services.
I'm interested in the aspect of culture when it comes to this agreement. I know that like Canada, the European Union protects the culture of its individual states, and I'm wondering if this similar outlook will make this aspect of the negotiations simpler for both sides and in light of the Government of Canada's briefing note on culture and CETA, which states that the chapter does not apply to certain types of procurement related to cultural industries. I'd be interested to know what those certain types of procurement are.
Mr. Champagne: I appreciate that. Madam Chair, in the interest of being succinct, I will say a few words and ask Steve to go right to your point.
The Chair: I'm mindful of your time, so I think if you can answer it from a policy perspective, the department officials will remain for the next hour where we can dig down deep on the contracts. Rather than yielding to the officials, your part of the answer would be helpful, and that way I can get all senators in on the questions.
Mr. Champagne: I'm happy to do so, chair.
From a policy perspective, I can say that there is recognition of cultural diversity. As you say, there are a number of exclusions in the CETA agreement to reflect that because this is one of the values that Canadians hold dear. There are also other provisions with respect to other areas of social policy that are excluded from the application of free trade, but in the interests of time I'm happy to have the officials walk you through the specific elements where we have preserved that. I'm happy that you raised that because that's an important thing that Canadians understand. When I say trade could be an element of good, it's also about protecting some of the things we hold dear in Canada and I think diversity is one of them.
Senator Bovey: And taking Canadian culture abroad.
Mr. Champagne: Exactly. As we know, as the content is shifting to more digital content, we could go on to that, and I think this is an area we're very much mindful of, senator.
Senator Bovey: Including copyright?
Mr. Champagne: Including copyright.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: You rightly pointed out that, overall, the agreement's benefits far outweigh its disadvantages. We know that some sectors and industries are particularly affected. My reading material came from concerns that are specific to the pharmaceutical industry and its products in general.
Here is my shortest question. In general, Canada imports brand name pharmaceuticals and produces more generic products. Various issues are related to the intellectual property for pharmaceutical products. Can you tell us about the impact you are seeing on pharmaceutical manufacturing in Canada and potential impacts on drug prices for Canadians?
Mr. Champagne: That is clearly an important issue, and I am glad that you raised the question. It is important to make medication affordable for Canadians.
What you are referring to is the fact that one of the provisions on intellectual property consists of three elements, one of which extends the protection period by two years for some eligible drugs. That two-year extension was added because it takes into account the time Health Canada takes to issue approval licenses for the marketing of those products. If you look at what is happening in the European Union and the United States, you will see that the extension there is five years. We managed to negotiate a two-year extension.
No direct correlation can be established between the extension and drug prices. Over the past five years, we have noted that drug prices are higher here than in Europe or in the United States. We don't see a correlation, but we want to make sure that there is still some innovation. We also want to ensure to continue to take actions in collaboration with the Minister of Health in this area. I would like to be clear, for Canadians' benefit, by specifying that there is no correlation with the two-year extension we have established. Other measures must be taken into account. If that was the case, we may wonder why drug prices in Canada are higher than elsewhere. We will continue to work on this, as it is an important issue for Canadians.
I repeat that I don't think a correlation can be established between the two-year extension and what currently exists and what has been negotiated under CETA.
Senator Saint-Germain: That is still an area that will be monitored with the implementation of the agreement, as there are risks both for industry and, potentially, for the consumer.
Mr. Champagne: Exactly. This is a key issue for Canada. We are working with provinces and territories on this. It is also very important for the entire government. As a minister, I was reassured by seeing that the extension is five years in other countries. However, there is no correlation between the extension and drug prices. I think that we can reassure Canadians in that regard. That section of the agreement should not lead to higher drug prices.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for your clear answer to a fairly specific question.
Senator Pratte: Minister, I would like you to clarify something that may be perfectly clear to you, but it is not clear to everyone. I am talking about the agreement's provisional application and about what will happen after its ratification. The ratification is a very long process that requires all European parliaments to agree. Provisional application is what will happen once the agreement has been approved and once Canada and Europe have exchanged letters. What happens after the agreement has been concluded by Canada and the Senate and the letters have been exchanged? In other words, once we have done our job, what could happen quickly? What will then be required for the ratification, which is a much longer process?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you for your question. Since all the elements of the European legislative process have been completed, the only remaining element is the Canadian Senate's approval, which is why I am here today. After that, royal assent will be given. As you mentioned, letters will also be exchanged because the agreement should come into force on the first day of the month. I have already spoken with my European counterpart to specify that we could agree on the date being in the middle of the month. As you know, it is in our interest that provisional application begin as quickly as possible. For me, every day counts in terms of trade balance. We have even informally agreed to perhaps make it the fifteenth day of the month, to avoid losing 15 days.
Regulatory provisions will have to be updated at the federal and provincial levels once royal assent has been given. Afterwards, 99 per cent of tariff lines — important economic elements of the agreement, such as for lobster — will drop from 25 per cent to zero. So economic benefits will be felt right away.
Various committees will have to be created between Canada and Europe. For example, sectoral committees were created to follow certain aspects of the agreement. Some of those aspects have to be examined with regard to the conflict resolution mechanism between Canada and Europe. A code of conduct must be implemented. In short, there is administrative work to be done.
What is important for Canadians is the fact that this agreement will come into force from an economic standpoint.
I continue to work with Ambassador Dion in Europe to follow the process in each of the European jurisdictions. We have already concluded with Latvia, but another 37 countries must ratify the agreement. I am in contact with my counterparts. We believe that it is important to create some momentum toward ratification, so that the entire agreement can be implemented. We are down primarily to the section on dispute resolution. However, I would say that the provision does not primarily affect Canadian companies that will export to Europe.
[English]
The Chair: Perhaps I can give my usual speech now, minister. We've been caught before by finding out late in the process that there are some time frames. In the Senate we continue to have the problem that the government first takes it process before it brings it to the house and then the house takes its time. Then it's on the floor of the Senate, and by the time it comes to this committee we're told that there are these time frames. I want to assure you that we hear you on the time frames, but I want you also to hear that we have to do our due diligence on the bill, and we intend to do that. We really need an alert much earlier if we have to work it into the process.
So, as a new minister, as you will have other agreements and contracts, please talk to your government officials, talk to the house officials and the house leaders here about time frames and that we should not be hearing about them at this committee. I do not want to put the members under that pressure. We had that with the last bill. You were not the minister, so you're just hearing all of this.
I hear you that you respect the Senate, and I want to tell you that we will work as quickly as we can. But we want to hear all of the witnesses that have asked to come forward. We'll expedite it as quickly as we can, but we want to do our due diligence.
Minister, I have done my due diligence. I have you out of here in exactly one hour, not one minute less. You can see how efficiently we work in this committee. I want to thank you for coming. We were able to condense it into one hour, but I can assure you that if there are more questions, we may have to have you back or may do it by written responses.
We take this agreement as being extremely important to Canada, and we want to be sure that we fully understand what the implementation agreement is and what the CETA agreement is. Thank you for starting the process today with us, and good luck on a very important portfolio for Canada.
Mr. Champagne: I just want to say thank you, Madam Chair. Message received. I hope to be Minister of International Trade for a long time, for the record, so that I can engage with you proactively.
Madam Chair, you said it; this is a whole-of-Canada effort. I want to work with you, senators. Canadians expect that of us, our European partners as well. I'm grateful for your diligence, and it bodes well for the future for us to work together. This is very much in the interest of Canadians. As Canadians are looking for opportunities and jobs and a better future, this is one instrument that hopefully will give them that, and we are convinced that, with you, we can achieve that sooner. I appreciate it. Thanks.
My door is always open, senator, to you and the committee, obviously, because I think we work together in the interest of Canadians across our nation.
The Chair: Thank you for that assurance. That's very helpful.
The officials are here to start delving into the agreement, and I'll start questions with Senator Bovey because she's put on the record some questions that need to be answered.
Who is the department official in charge on behalf of the department?
Steve Verheul, Chief Trade Negotiator (Canada-European Union), Global Affairs Canada: It's me, Steve Verheul. I'm the chief trade negotiator for CETA.
The Chair: Thank you. We are continuing with the officials on any specific questions that you may wish to address.
Senator Bovey, you had some in-depth questions, and I think now is the time. Do we have an official who could answer those? Mr. Verheul, are you going to do it?
Senator Bovey: Madam Chair, if I may, I'm disappointed I didn't have the opportunity to have that discussion with the minister. I think these issues are really important, and, if we all have any kind of memory, we'll recall how important the discussions were around the publishing industry as the Canadian government was negotiating NAFTA. I hope people really understand that I don't come at this as being a frivolous side. I think the cultural and copyright issues in CETA are very important. I was really intrigued with the European briefing notes that I had the opportunity to read some months ago, that copyright and intellectual property were a significant part in their briefing notes.
Given, as I said, the European Union protecting the culture of its individual states the way we do — or at least I hope we do — does that make the aspect of negotiations simpler for the CETA agreement? I would like to know what the certain types of procurement are that do not apply in CETA with regard to cultural industries.
Mr. Verheul: Thank you very much. Culture was certainly an important part of the negotiations right from the beginning, and we worked very closely with the cultural community in developing our approach to CETA.
I can tell you quite clearly that the protections for culture in CETA are far stronger than they are in NAFTA. We have much more secure protections when it comes to culture. Part of it was, as you say, because we had a very willing negotiating partner with the EU. The EU had a common interest in culture, protecting culture, cultural diversity. Abilities to subsidize and promote culture were also protected.
The difference between us and the EU on these issues was that the EU could only protect a very narrow scope of cultural issues, and that related to audiovisual services. From Canada's perspective, we could protect almost the entire range of cultural activities. The EU was constrained because of prior commitments they took in the WTO. So we did manage to protect virtually all of our cultural activities.
When it comes to government procurement, there are only certain aspects, as you can imagine, of government procurement that are actually related to culture. What we've done there is to protect a number of practices that include practices by Quebec and provisions relating to culture when it comes to the construction of certain buildings and facilities. They need a cultural element in those projects, so we have protected that entirely, along with a couple of other elements, but primarily relating to Quebec. No other provinces that we're aware of have those kinds of specific cultural issues related to procurement.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
The Chair: Further questions? Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: I'm fine, thank you. I'll hold them for another time.
Senator Woo: I have a small technical question on the percentage of trade that is covered by the CETA agreement. The minister I think said 98 per cent of tariff lines. In value terms, is it also 98 per cent?
Mr. Verheul: Yes. You will hear people often say that in value terms they cover a certain percentage. In CETA, we've gone far beyond that. We covered 98 per cent of tariffs, 98 per cent of value, and that's only on the first day the agreement comes into effect. At the end of the phase-in period, it's 99 per cent both of value and of tariff lines.
Senator Woo: Was there a substantive distinction between the percentage of tariff lines and value of trade conducted?
Mr. Verheul: Not in this case. In many cases you will hear people say that they covered 99 per cent of our exports. That's different because you may have your exports concentrated in a very few number of tariff lines. CETA is very comprehensive with respect to —
Senator Woo: I appreciate that. There was no attempt at obfuscation here.
Can you give us roughly what was left out in broad terms, the 2 per cent that is not covered under this agreement, on both sides, of course?
Mr. Verheul: Yes, I can, and it may not surprise you to know that it's largely agricultural products. In fact, the only exceptions were poultry and eggs, on both sides. Neither of us covered anything to do with poultry and eggs. On our side, the only dairy products we covered were cheese and milk protein substances. Those were the only issues where we completely exempted complete tariff elimination on our side. On the EU side, we have tariff quotas on products like beef and pork, but there is a tariff if those quotas are exceeded.
Senator Woo: Did we get any concessions on above-quota tariffs on beef and other issues that the EU was resisting concessions on?
Mr. Verheul: We did not really seek concessions on the over-quota tariffs. We were interested in the maximum possible value that we could get in at zero tariffs. In the case of beef and pork, that amounts to some $1 billion worth of exports that we managed to achieve.
Senator Woo: I have a question on the investment provisions, particularly the review process on the EU side. Could you tell us about what the review process is like for Canadian investment going into the EU in terms of thresholds and limitations on companies, and what concessions we were able to gain as a result of CETA?
Mr. Verheul: It really doesn't operate in terms of thresholds. What we've done with respect to investments is we've redeveloped the traditional investment chapter to include a number of different elements that were targeted towards improving the system in various ways. For example, we wanted to ensure that the protections that we have described in the CETA chapter were carefully spelled out to provide guidance to any future dispute review. So we've explained in detail how panels should interpret what the two governments meant when the agreements were negotiated. That applies to issues like indirect expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, those kinds of provisions.
Any investor that faces what they feel is a breach of the agreement in the EU, for example, once this is in place — and, as you know, it's not subject to provisional application — any investor that feels the agreement has been breached would be able to pursue a case.
Senator Woo: On the Canadian side, though, we did raise the threshold for review by the Investment Canada Act for European companies seeking to invest in this country. I'm wondering if we also made any modifications to the requirement under the ICA for special scrutiny of state-owned or state-linked or government-linked companies coming from the EU.
Mr. Verheul: I think I understand your question a little better now. First of all, there's no threshold on the EU side. They don't have a threshold in the way that we have a threshold.
We did raise the limit on our side to $1.5 billion for investments from the EU. We have not amended that policy other than with respect to certain other investment-related issues, including uranium, for example, where we've made some slight amendments to the policy for allowing investments in Canada.
Senator Woo: So companies from the EU that might be deemed as state-owned or state-linked or government-linked will continue to be subject to special scrutiny under the ICA?
Mr. Verheul: As you know, there were some changes made to the Investment Canada Act. With respect to state- owned enterprises, we did not make further changes in that respect to CETA.
Senator Downe: You indicated that 98 per cent of items can be exported tariff-free when the deal is enforced. What is the current percentage that is being exported to Europe tariff-free?
Mr. Verheul: I believe it's 25 per cent.
Senator Downe: Could you confirm that and let us know in writing?
Mr. Verheul: I can confirm it for you right now.
Senator Downe: It is 25 per cent?
Mr. Verheul: Yes.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
I'd like to talk about the changes to the Coasting Trade Act. Officials, I understand from Transport Canada, are saying that changing the English-language definition of "owner'' would prevent non-European Union shippers from exploiting a loophole in the legislation, but I'm hearing from the shipping industry that it narrows the definition of "owner'' and it might make it easier for some shipowners to disguise the ownership of a given vessel. Why was the change made?
Mr. Verheul: I think I'll let my colleagues from Transport Canada respond to that question.
Louise Laflamme, Chief, Marine Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question. In fact, the definition was modified for two main reasons. One was to match the French-language version of the same definition, which was much more precise in language, and it does make it much more precise in terms of saying that it is the person who has, by law or contract, the use or possession of the vessel. The existing language of the Coasting Trade Act includes the person who has, by law or contract, the possession or use.
So the existing language version in English is actually wider and could allow people who are beneficially not necessarily the people who have control of the vessel at the time to take advantage of the benefits we've negotiated in CETA. So the amendment is actually making it much more targeted and ensuring that what we've negotiated in CETA is met.
Senator Downe: Was the industry consulted on this change?
Ms. Laflamme: The industry was consulted in terms of what would need to be amended in the act. They were advised that there were going to be changes to the definition of "owner.'' Most of the industry that was consulted in this case were Canadian vessel owners.
The Chair: Just a clarification of that, because I think a lot of us have been approached on this issue. Is it changing the existing practice on how owners are treated, whether they are coming in with one vessel and one owner or whether several owners are combining into one vessel? Will this affect that arrangement? I heard that they pool cargo into one ship. If you're going to say "owner,'' then you may exclude those that have just pooled with the actual person who owns the ship. Before, the owner was not the issue and having the combination was acceptable.
Ms. Laflamme: Right now in industry, when more than one company uses the same vessel, usually they have a contract of ownership for a portion of that vessel to move the cargo they would like, at the tariffs that they've negotiated. In most cases, those people have a contract in law for the use of the vessel there.
The way this is going to affect the application of CETA is that every qualifying owner of a space on a vessel, if they meet all the conditions in the Coasting Trade Act to implement CETA, then they will benefit from what's been negotiated. So the ones that have an ownership portion of a vessel but are not an EU entity and don't meet the conditions of the Coasting Trade Act to implement CETA, they will be excluded.
So it doesn't change the way we look at how a vessel is owned today. It's just a precision. The French-language version was really the way we've looked at and applied coasting trade, so this is a continuation of the way we will be applying the act going forward.
The Chair: You keep saying the French language and the English language and saying no change, yet you seem to be yielding to the French-language interpretation of it, not the English. It would be helpful if you could identify how it was done and what will be the change under the CETA in a written form and provide it to the committee.
Ms. Laflamme: Yes.
Senator Downe: Was it a requirement for CETA that the wording be changed, or was it an initiative of Transport Canada?
Ms. Laflamme: This was an initiative by Transport Canada to ensure that we would apply the agreement according to our obligations.
Senator Downe: So it was not required for CETA; it was an initiative on our part?
Ms. Laflamme: It was, but it was to ensure that we don't extend the agreement benefits to non-parties.
Senator Downe: My other question is about the EU-supplied feeders. Only two ports are mentioned, Halifax and Montreal. Why were other ports in Canada excluded?
Ms. Laflamme: We included Halifax and Montreal essentially because those were the two ports that were requested during the negotiations. Those are some of the ports that have most of the traffic and trade with the EU.
Senator Downe: But why were the other ports that have some of the traffic not included?
Mr. Verheul: We had a long discussion with EU about that. They had interest that was somewhat broader than where we eventually landed. But the fact was — and they're aware of this — that to our knowledge there are not currently any Canadian carriers shipping between Halifax and Montreal on a continuous basis. It's done more by truck or by rail. So the Europeans made the argument that if there's nobody doing it now, perhaps we could have an opportunity on that particular route. We did not accept any effort to expand that to other routes.
Senator Downe: Why, for example, was Sydney or Cape Breton excluded?
Mr. Verheul: Basically because of what I mentioned: They were interested in other routes. We saw fit to provide access on this particular route because no one else was serving it from a Canadian perspective.
Senator Downe: That was their interest, but what was our interest? Who was speaking for Sydney or Cape Breton? They wanted to have this inclusion.
Mr. Verheul: We did not get that expression of interest from Sydney.
Senator Downe: Were they consulted?
Mr. Verheul: We consulted broadly. I think Transport Canada consulted as well. I'm not sure about Transport Canada, but we did not hear that representation.
Senator Downe: We'll look forward to their presentation.
The Chair: Perhaps that goes to how you negotiate it. You seem to be negotiating on a responsive basis, where I would have thought you would have been anticipating changes in the future in flows and opportunities, et cetera. So we've now said that these are the routes that should be, and now we have an agreement based on that. But in five years the world may change completely and there will be an appetite. How do we change CETA after that?
Mr. Verheul: It's always easy to further liberalize a trade agreement. That's usually not a problem to negotiate, amend or just do it in practice. But the fact is most countries are very restrictive when it comes to cabotage. Canada is included among those. We're not the most restrictive; the U.S. is far more restrictive than we are. We were not intending to provide openings to our cabotage market. That's largely protected for Canadian suppliers.
The EU did make the request in this one particular route. We saw an opportunity there to accommodate some of their concerns, some of their interests, because it was not currently being filled by Canadian operators. That's what led to that particular outcome. We were not interested in giving them more than they asked for.
Senator Gold: I believe I raised this at an earlier occasion, but the liberalization of trade between Canada and the EU, and access throughout Canada to EU products, poses a dilemma for Canadian producers across provinces, because, alas, we have somewhat less of the free trade agreement internally.
Can you give us an update on the status of negotiations within Canada to ensure that Canadian suppliers and producers enjoy the same favourable access across the country as their European counterparts will once the deal comes into force?
Mr. Verheul: When we completed the CETA negotiations, there were a number of cases primarily in the government procurement area where the EU did have better access than other provinces did to procurement opportunities in a particular province. Subsequent to that, there was the Agreement on Internal Trade to remove barriers between provinces. I wasn't personally involved in that negotiation. I have been told that that did successfully remove most of those inequities, but we would have to verify that from somebody that was actually involved in those negotiations.
Senator Gold: That would be helpful, thank you.
The Chair: So you will follow up and file with the clerk a written response to that?
Mr. Verheul: Yes, we will.
Senator Gold: Perhaps I can change gears a bit. With regard to the dispute resolution mechanisms, a host of issues that are raised by the changes that have been introduced. One of the most eminent arbitrators, the Honourable Yves Fortier, has worried aloud that the move toward a more permanent tribunal might have the negative consequence of discouraging otherwise able and experienced arbitrators from joining the tribunal because they would be required to give up their interesting and no doubt lucrative arbitration practice in other cases. Is that a real concern? Do you have concerns about that? Have you heard from others to the same effect?
Mr. Verheul: One of the specific complaints that we heard, particularly on the European side, was that there are a fairly limited number of arbitrators that do these kinds of cases. We would often encounter situations where an arbitrator in one case may have been legal counsel and advocate in the next case. Given that this happened quite frequently, and happened particularly often in Europe where you would get an arbitrator sitting on one side of the table in one case and on the other side of the table in another case, it raised a lot of questions about independence, impartiality and lack of bias. That's a big reason why we developed the code of conduct, got the issue about conflicts of interest covered off and are further developing a code of ethics. But that was one of the major concerns identified — that this was a very small club when it comes to arbitrators and we needed a more impartial, independent type of approach.
Senator Gold: I appreciate that. As one who tried to get into that business, I can tell you it is tightly controlled. That said, is it at all worrisome that the consequence of these initiatives, salutary though they are, might have the effect of robbing the dispute mechanism process of some of the best, brightest and most experienced practitioners?
Mr. Verheul: We haven't really seen that as a concern. I think there's enough of a population out there that would include some arbitrators that may want to follow this particular route, some academics that may want to serve as tribunal members, and we expect retired judges would be primed candidates for that. We think there's enough of a pool of people with enough legal experience to step into these jobs and do them more than adequately.
The Chair: Are there any other questions for the department officials? I take it that the briefings to the individual senators or the groups of senators must have been adequate, because we've run out of questions. I'd like to thank you for staying. We may reach out to you to answer other questions.
In that light, senators, we circulated the list of witnesses that have been gathered from senators and from other sources, and those that asked to appear before us. So we've clustered them and, hopefully, as I said yesterday, we can proceed with this list. As we go through it, at some point I will ask whether you wish to have the minister return on any specific questions before we end the session.
(The committee adjourned.)