Verslag van een bijeenkomst : Verslag van een gesprek, gehouden op 6 november 2019, met de Canadese ambassadeur over CETA

Nr. 62
VERSLAG VAN EEN GESPREK

Vastgesteld 3 december 2019

De algemene commissie voor Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, de vaste
commissie voor Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, de vaste commissie voor Economische
Zaken en Klimaat en de vaste commissie voor Buitenlandse Zaken hebben op 6 november
2019 een gesprek gevoerd over CETA.

Van dit overleg brengt de commissie bijgaand geredigeerd woordelijk verslag uit.

De voorzitter van de algemene commissie voor Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, De Roon

De voorzitter van de vaste commissie voor Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Kuiken

De voorzitter van de vaste commissie voor Economische Zaken en Klimaat, Diks

De voorzitter van de vaste commissie voor Buitenlandse Zaken, Pia Dijkstra

De griffier van de algemene commissie voor Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, Van Toor

Voorzitter: Bouali

Griffier: Meijers

Aanwezig zijn negen leden der Kamer, te weten: Alkaya, Amhaouch, Bouali, Diks, Van
Haga, Ouwehand, Voordewind, Van Weerdenburg en Weverling,

alsmede mevrouw Helfand, Canadese ambassadeur in Nederland, en de heer Lambert, Counsellor
and Head of Trade, Economic and Science & Technology Policy van de Canadese Missie
bij de EU.

Aanvang 13.07 uur.

De voorzitter:

Oké collega's, we gaan weer aan de slag. We gaan naar het gesprek met de Canadese
ambassadeur in Nederland.

We switch to English now. Madam Ambassador, welcome to the Netherlands. You have recently
been appointed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so welcome to the House of Representatives.
We would ask you, Madam Ambassador, to give us a short presentation on your views
on CETA. You are accompanied by Mr Stephane Lambert, the Counsellor of your Embassy
in Brussels, if I am not mistaken.

The floor is yours, Madam Ambassador.

Mevrouw Helfand:

Honourable members, colleagues, it is my honour to be here as you consider the Canada-EU
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. You have already been introduced to my
colleague, Stephane Lambert, who is the Counsellor and Head of Trade in our mission
to the EU in Brussels. As mentioned, I am fairly new to the Netherlands, so I welcome
this opportunity to speak to this critical part of our great and longstanding relationship.
You have heard from numerous witnesses today, many of whom have shared with you the
tangible benefits of CETA for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Dutch exporters
and importers and your vibrant and multifaceted economy. As such, I wanted to focus
my short remarks on what I know best, which is Canada. With your indulgence, I will
also use this opportunity to dispel some myths related to CETA, because facts do matter.

Canada is the fastest growing economy in the G7 and the easiest place in the G20 to
establish a business. We are also the world's most connected economy, a gateway to
North America and to the world. With some 40 bilateral trade agreements, Canada offers
preferential access to a global market, with a combined GDP of 51.4 trillion US Dollars.
Already, Canada is a reliable trading partner for the Netherlands. You are our fifth
largest European trading partner and 11th worldwide. In fact, more than 3,300 Dutch
companies are active in bilateral trade, including in clean tech, agriculture and
information & communications technologies.

Canada is also the second largest market for Dutch investment. Canadian direct investment
in the Netherlands is also substantial, valued at over 25 billion euro's in 2018.
This includes important investments in clean energy. The Canadian company Northland
Power is the lead financier of the Gemini Wind Farm in the North Sea, the third largest
offshore wind park in the world. Northland has set up a European office in Amsterdam.
These investments bring high-quality jobs and prosperity to Dutch society. The Netherlands
is hub for over 100 Canadian companies in Europe, employing more than 15,000 people
and interest continues to grow.

But the backbone to all of this is the fact that Canada has a lot in common with your
country: similar values, complementary global outlooks and a common commitment to
a rules-based international order. As you noticed, like-mindedness runs long and deep,
forged in our historic World War II ties and bolstered by our innovative and forward-looking
bilateral relationship. It has been my honour to participate in your community's tributes
to fallen Canadian soldiers in my short time here, including two weeks ago in Bergen
op Zoom and this weekend on the Canadian liberation march.

Our people-to-people ties are strong and strengthened daily by this commercial exchange.
More than 1.2 million Canadians have a Dutch ancestry and importantly, Canada, like
the Netherlands, is a trading nation. We are middle-sized and middle-powered, but
stronger through our global connectedness. And that is where CETA comes in. In addition
to growing opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs, CETA also represents a
clear commitment to and leadership on rules-based trade and multilateralism. It shows
that in the face of pressure, Canada and its European partners stand up for an open
and predictable global trade. In that sense, CETA is progressive. It commits our countries
to maintaining high levels of environmental and labour protection and to monitoring
CETA's impact on sustainable development.

CETA's Trade and Environment Chapter reaffirms that environmental standards cannot
be lowered in order to encourage trade or to attract investment. CETA's Trade and
Labour Chapter recognizes Canada's and the EU's ability to set our own labour priorities
and levels of protection. It encourages high levels of labour protection and recognizes
that it is inappropriate to spur trade or investment by weakening or reducing the
levels of protection afforded in labour laws and standards. CETA also enables greater
cooperation between Canada and its EU partners, to address climate change and other
global environmental challenges. For example, it includes commitments for Canada and
EU member states to facilitate and promote trade in environmental goods and services,
with special attention to goods and services of particular relevance for climate change
mitigation.

CETA also reaffirms Canada's and the EU's commitments to the multilateral environmental
agreements that each of us has signed, which includes the Paris Agreement. In fact,
last fall in Montreal, the CETA Joint Committee adopted a recommendation that reiterates
the importance of achieving the purpose and goals of the Paris Agreement, in order
to address the urgent threat of climate change and the world of trade to this end.

The first cooperative activity under the CETA Trade and Environment Chapter was a
conference on CETA Trade and Climate in Brussels in January. This event brought together
more than 130 participants from civil society, business and government, to discuss
how CETA and climate action can be mutually supportive. Clean technology companies
are meeting today again in Montreal. This cooperation opens doors for innovation,
the sharing of best practices and learning from one another. Following the visit to
the Netherlands in June of the premier of the province of British Columbia, the Food
Security Taskforce established recently by British Columbia came again, studying new
ways to strengthen agriculture through technology and innovation.

CETA also demonstrates our shared ambition for inclusive trade that is beneficial
for all parts of the economy and all segments of society. The frameworks under CETA
make trade policies more gender responsive and enhance commercial opportunities for
small and medium-sized enterprises, thus ensuring that the benefits of trade liberalisation
are widely spread. And here is something else we have in common. Small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) make up the backbone of both our economies and comprise 91% of
Dutch exporters. CETA also makes investor arbitration procedures fairer, more independent
and more transparent. Once CETA enters into force, these provisions will provide Dutch
and Canadian investors with greater predictability, transparency and protection for
their investments, while protecting our governments» rights to regulate.

And CETA is working. The numbers speak for themselves. Since provisional application
in September 2017, merchandise trade with the Netherlands has increased by a remarkable
35.2%. This includes an 18.3% increase in Dutch merchandise exports to Canada, benefitting
your successful enterprises.

De voorzitter:

Madam Ambassador, may I ask you to wind up, please?

Mevrouw Helfand:

Sure. I will just briefly say what CETA is not, because I want to acknowledge some
of the myths; the misinformation that continues to pop up in the debate on CETA. CETA
does not undermine European or Dutch standards, because we also prioritize the maintenance
of high standards. We are wholly committed to the principles set out in CETA, that
trade agreements should fully preserve the ability of governments to regulate. We
can talk about this later. Our decisions on how to regulate to ensure food safety
as well as animal and plant health, remain with the respective government authorities
and imports must comply with these regulations and standards. This includes existing
Canadian-Dutch regulations for GMOs and animal feed additives.

Many people on both sides of the Atlantic, especially those working hard to join the
middle class, feel that trade and globalization have not worked for them, but CETA
is a manifestation of a new approach, one that not only benefits all segments of society,
but also acts as a comprehensive blueprint for responsible economic cooperation between
countries. These are the guiding principles behind Canada's inclusive approach to
trade and they will continue to promote prosperity for Dutch and Canadians alike.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

De voorzitter:

Madam Ambassador, thank you very much for your presentation. I will now give the floor
to my colleagues. I will start with Ms Isabelle Diks from GreenLeft.

Mevrouw Diks (GroenLinks):

Thank you very much, Madam Ambassador. It is very clear that we share a history together.
I do hope that we also share a bright future. However, in my view and the view of
my party, we do not need CETA for that. We do not need CETA to reaffirm the strong
connection we have. Of course we do see the benefits for firms and companies on both
sides of the ocean. That is clear to me, but my question is: why is the Canadian government
so committed to this ICS-system? After all, everybody acknowledges that both the EU
and Canada already have a very strong legal system.

De voorzitter:

Thank you very much. We proceed to Joel Voordewind from the Christian Union.

De heer Voordewind (ChristenUnie):

Thank you, chair, and welcome Madam Ambassador. It is good to have you with us here
and to be able to ask you some questions. My question concerns the track and trace
system from Canada to Europe. I gather from previous articles that there is no registration
system for the use of medicines in livestock, which makes it difficult for us to find
out what kind of meat we are going to import into Europe, especially where it comes
to hormone use. Could you respond to that one please?

De voorzitter:

Thank you. Mr Van Haga.

De heer Van Haga (Van Haga):

Thank you very much, Madam Ambassador. The tangible benefits of CETA are obvious.
Canada is the largest country for Dutch investments. We have similar values, we dwell
on rule-based trade, we both have working democracies. Neither Europe nor Canada is
inclined to lower any environmental standards or any other standards whatsoever. Having
said this, does it not strike you as very odd to see that the Netherlands may be the
only country not to ratify CETA? What do you think are the implications of that?

De voorzitter:

Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Weverling from the Liberal Party VVD.

De heer Weverling (VVD):

Madam Ambassador, I have a question as well. We have a long-term relationship. We
are both trading nations. We both benefit from the advantages of an open trade system.
My question is a «what if»-question about the ICS part of the agreement. If it were
possible, would you prefer to have an agreement without the ICS part of the current
version?

De voorzitter:

Thank you very much. We heard four members of parliament and I suggest you answer
their questions before we continue with the second batch, Madam Ambassador.

Mevrouw Helfand:

If you allow, I will take the ICS questions together. The new provision for ICS is
designed to allow stability and predictability for the investors. Normally when you
have an international treaty, it is not the domestic courts who look at the provisions
of the treaty. It is a special body. That is what we have in the ICS. We have also
learned a large number of things in our experience with other free trade agreements
over the past 30 years. That is why we have put considerable improvements in the ICS,
to enable everyone to have their say when the cases are being heard. But in particular,
it is also why we restated in the recent agreement that governments have the right
to regulate. We have to balance off the predictability for the investors and, of course,
what we all acknowledge, which is our government's right to regulate for the public
good. What we do not want, are investors who are afraid to invest, because they think
that their goods or companies are going to be expropriated without giving them any
right to get any kind of compensation.

Stephane, you want to add anything?

De heer Lambert:

Sure. Just in complement to this: through CETA, the EU and Canada have decided to
protect their investments and investors, and that is a testimony to the intensity
of our investment relationship. As the Ambassador mentioned, with the Netherlands
being the second largest investor in Canada, I think there is a stake for the Netherlands
in the ICS system. So the ICS will really look only at the substantial obligations
in the treaty and these are core and standard in any investment treaty around the
world, including those that the Netherlands have entered into. They are looked at
for non-discrimination of investors, fair and equitable treatment for investors and
there is also an expropriation provision, so in case of an expropriation, the investor
is entitled to a fair compensation. This is all subject also to the right to regulate.

As the Ambassador pointed out, there are significant improvements in the ICS – I would
be happy to provide more details – from the old private arbitration model, which are
inspired by the European judicial tradition and courts such as the International Court
of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights. So it is very similar in terms of
structure to what you have in Europe. It establishes really a permanent tribunal that
would look at these issues.

De voorzitter:

There was one more question from the Christian Union about hormone meat and tracing
and tracking.

De heer Lambert:

Exactly. Any Canadian exporter wishing to export meat or meat products to Europe has
to meet EU entry requirements. For meat and meat products, these require that the
exporter grows a whole line separate from his or her cattle. The first step is to
register the facility at the federal level and have it approved by the EU. Today,
there are only 36 such farms registered at the federal level. The owner of the facility
must keep a register of all the cattle born on his farm. There is an obligation to
keep a register from birth onwards for three years. There is an obligation that calves
born on the facility be raised in the wilderness, comparable to production processes
here in the EU. And there is an obligation to ensure that the food supplements used
are free of any substances that do not comply with EU requirements.

Prior to the export, an on-site inspection is carried out and certification takes
place under a very rigorous system, by the Canadian Food I0nspection Agency. Once
the meat reaches the importer in the EU, a second inspection is made by veterinarian
services of the importing country. So there is a very, very rigorous system in place
to trace the origins of the meat and to make sure the meat complies with the EU food
safety standards.

De voorzitter:

Thank you very much. Maybe te last question by Mr Van Haga. What is your assessment
if the Netherlands would be the only country not to ratify?

Mevrouw Helfand:

The Netherlands has its democratic process, which I completely respect. But I am confident
that, once there is a full discussion based on facts, the Netherlands will in fact
ratify the agreement and I will be quite happy when that day occurs.

De voorzitter:

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Mr Amhaouch of the Christian Democratic
Party.

De heer Amhaouch (CDA):

Thank you, Mr chairman. Yes, the Netherlands and Canada are trading nations. I think
our shared history in this field is very important. My question is about the level
playing field. What is the view of Canadian society on reaching a trade agreement,
as a small country – Canada has a population of 35 million and its GDP is smaller
than Europe's – with the EU, which has a population of 560 million? Are the Canadians
happy to do this? Are they happy to conclude a trade agreement with Europe?

De voorzitter:

I give the floor to Ms Van Weerdenburg, PVV.

Mevrouw Van Weerdenburg (PVV):

Madam Ambassador, you do not have to sell Canada to us. As you said, the relations
between our countries go way back. We all respect Canada. Everyone here wants to do
trade with Canada. Our opposition to CETA has to do with the fact that in our opinion,
it is an unfair deal for a lot of Dutch businesses and farmers. Let us face it: if
our two countries were to negotiate a bilateral deal, we would not even need an ICS-provision,
would we?

De voorzitter:

Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Alkaya of the Socialist Party.

De heer Alkaya (SP):

Thank you, Madam Ambassador, for your presentation and the views you shared with us.
My question is about a specific comment you made, namely that CETA also represents
a commitment to multilateralism from both sides. We currently see a lot of countries
turning their back to multilateral organisations, because they have been led by neoliberalism,
which has had many negative consequences for working class people all over the globe,
not just in a few countries. You are a representative of a liberal government, and
we have a liberal government here as well. Would you say that the main signal and
the main benefit of CETA is also political and not economic? Like you have said, we
have already investors here in the Netherlands, like Northland, who already do a lot
of business here, without ICS and without the investment protection provided by CETA.

De voorzitter:

Thank you. I give the floor to Ms Ouwehand of the Party for the Animals.

Mevrouw Ouwehand (PvdD):

Thank you so much. Madam Ambassador, I would like to tell you that farmers in the
Netherlands and in the European Union are facing enormous reforms for the benefit
of the environment, of animal welfare and the preservation of nature. And rightfully
so. They are concerned that the farmers in Canada will not have to change as much
as they do. What I would like to ask you is this: is there great enthusiasm amongst
farmers in Canada for stricter regulations protecting the environment? I am guessing
there is not. When you talk to us about accepting each other's standards and comply
with them, then I have to ask you this one question: in the European Union, some pesticides
have been banned. Instead of following these new European regulations, Canada lobbied
in the European Union for a rise of the allowable maximum residue level. So, not only
are our farmers in the European Union held to stricter regulations pertaining to the
use of pesticides, but also the products we import from Canada, the vegetables and
potatoes, may contain higher levels of residue than the products grown by European
farmers. If you want to sell us the argument that Canada will definitely comply, why
did you lobby for this?

De voorzitter:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the Ambassador for her reply.

Mevrouw Helfand:

On the question regarding us being trading nations and what the Canadian point of
view is regarding trade agreements, I can say that in Canada, we have already had
the debate that you are having now, 30 years ago, when we entered into our free trade
agreements with the United States. It was quite an active and vigorous debate, with
players on both sides. But the fact is, after more than 30 years of free trade with
the United States, it is almost universally acknowledged that everyone benefits from
free trade, even though we might be a smaller market than our neighbours to the south.

To the point that when there came a time that we had to look at updating the agreement,
because it had been a long time: it was seen as a great victory in Canada that we
succeeded in getting an agreement with the United States, so we could continue to
have the benefits that we have seen for the last 30 years. So there really is not
any question in Canada about whether the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
with the EU is a positive development. It is just assumed, because this is the reality
we have lived with in terms of our trade for the last 30 years. It is just assumed
and acknowledged that free trade is good for everybody.

De heer Lambert:

I will address the other question that was asked: why do we need an agreement, since
our trade and investment relationship is good and growing? There are a couple of reasons
why we need an agreement, but I will keep it very short. I think that the agreement
delivers significant benefits. The most visible aspect is the tariff preferences.
As a reference, just look at the impact. The Ambassador quoted a few numbers and made
a few remarks on that. It means that the average tariffs applied to products, which
could be as high as 15% or 20% prior to the agreement, are now 0%. Products iarenow
entering the Canadian market – or the European market – at a 0% tariff rate. Preferential
tariffs mean that companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs can save on
the tariffs and invest in making their companies grow, and that their products can
be more competitive on each other's market place. This is increased prosperity on
both sides and it translates into jobs on both sides.

The other, maybe less visible aspect is the institutional framework. In any mature
and growing trading relationship, it is very useful to have a governance framework,
in which we can discuss irritants as they arise, in which we can discuss how we want
to organize our trade, how we want to improve the way we trade and how we can make
trading easier for SMEs. For instance, how can we address what we call non-trade tariff
barriers? CETA has a very, very rich governance framework attached to it. There are
various specialized committees, many of which have met once, some have met twice since
the implementation started. It shows that we can really have a conversation to make
the act of trading easier for SMEs. That is what I wanted to say in short.

Mevrouw Helfand:

That leads into an answer to the other question about the benefits being both economic
and social. CETA has another side to it: the special political agreement, which is
a reaffirmation of the common values that we have with the European Union. It is important
to see that the two agreements are really one whole. So it is not just about the trade
and the economics, it is also about the common values that we share.

I just want to talk for a bit about the farmers, because that issue has been raised.
Stephane Lambert has already explained how the system works. Anything that the farmers
produce and that comes into the European Union has to comply with European standards.
But it is also the case that the Netherlands have a agrifoodcultural trade surplus
of approximately 113 million euros with Canada in 2018. Canada's share of the Netherlands»
total agrifood and seafood imports was 0.3% in 2018. So I think for the Dutch agricultural
sector, there is clearly a large benefit to CETA. I think that is really hard to refute
in any way: the Dutch farmers are already seeing the benefits of the CETA agreement.

De voorzitter:

Just a short remark, madam Ambassador. My colleague from the Party for the Animals
addressed specifically the issue of the pesticides. If you could elaborate on that?

De heer Lambert:

Sure. In short it is important to know that products entering the EU market have to
respect the EU framework and comply with it. In that respect, CETA does not change
the framework on the use of pesticides for crops coming into Canada. If you are referring
to the debate about the glyphosate molecule, that is not a CETA issue. In fact, there
are over 130 countries, including EU countries, that use this molecule in the EU.
It was approved and re-approved at the end of 2017 for a five-year period. It is in
use in Canada. It is in use in many countries that export goods to the Netherlands,
such as Germany, Morocco and Brazil. Canada has recently strengthened the requirements
regarding the use of glyphosate, for example the labelling requirements, to minimize
the risk entailed by human exposure to glyphosates. But the crops that are grown and
sold to EU markets from Canada, meet the EU framework in place and strictly comply
with it.

De voorzitter:

Thank you very much. I think we have...

Mevrouw Ouwehand (PvdD):

Excuse me, Mr chairman...

De voorzitter:

I know, but I have pointed out to you all that we have a time slot and we are out
of time already. I suggest you clarify your open question bilaterally after we closed
this meeting.

Madam Ambassador, Mr Lambert, thank you very much for speaking to us in this parliament.
We wish you both good luck with your assignment in the Netherlands and we hope to
see you again here in parliament soon.

Sluiting 13.38 uur.