Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697646451107.pdf (Canada)
Report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation respecting its Mission to Brussels and for the 40th Annual Inter- Parliamentary Meeting between the European Parliament and the Parliament of Canada Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association Brussels, Belgium and Strasbourg, France 12-14 March 2019 REPORT From 12 to 14 March 2019, the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association (the Association) sent a delegation of two parliamentarians to Brussels, Belgium, and Strasbourg, France, on a mission to Brussels to discuss key issues related to the European Union (EU), and to Strasbourg to participate in the 40th Inter-Parliamentary Meeting (IPM) between the Association and the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Canada (DRC).
The delegates were Scott Simms, MP and head of the delegation, and Francesco Sorbara, MP.

The delegation was accompanied by Madalina Chesoi and Maxime-Olivier Thibodeau, Association advisors.

PARLIAMENTARY MISSION TO BRUSSELS, BELGIUM On 12 March 2019, the delegation participated in a parliamentary mission to Brussels, Belgium, to attend meetings on key issues related to the EU.
Briefing with Canada’s Ambassador to the European Union The delegation began its mission with a briefing by His Excellency Daniel J. Costello, Ambassador of Canada to the European Union.

Jessica Blitt, Counsellor and Head of Foreign Policy, Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the Mission of Canada to the European Union, and Sarah Simoneau, First Secretary at Parliamentary Affairs and Foreign Policy, also took part in that briefing session and accompanied the delegation throughout its mission.
Ambassador Costello mentioned that preparations for negotiating a free-trade agreement between the EU and the United States (U.S.) were under way, with the threat of tariffs on automobiles in the background.

At the same time, China is making strategic investments in the EU (in ports, for example).
He recalled that the issue of Huawei’s potential involvement in building the 5G infrastructure in Canada and in the EU – as well as the possibility to sell devices that would use the 5G infrastructure in these markets – is still unresolved.

According to Ambassador Costello, dealing with major players like China and Russia without going into full protectionist mode will be amongst the next European Commission’s challenges.
He informed the delegation that an EU-China summit would take place on 9 April 2019, based on the “16+” formula, which means China + 11 EU Member States + five Balkan countries that are not members of the EU.

Ambassador Costello mentioned that this EU-China summit would be a good opportunity to try to convince China to come under the World Trade Organization (WTO) system.

A Canada- EU summit will follow the China-EU summit on 11-12 April 2019.
Another challenge facing the EU is the presence of populist parties in certain European countries.

Ambassador Costello gave as an example the case of Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister.
Orban’s far-right party, Fidesz, is still affiliated with the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP) – the pan-European political group with the most members in the current European Parliament – despite, among other concerns regarding democracy and the rule of law in Hungary, a poster campaign against European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, ironically also a member of the EPP.
The EPP’s decision not to expel Orban could be explained by the fear of losing many votes associated with him.1 Regarding Brexit, Ambassador Costello argued that what matters most is the post-Brexit period: how will the EU adapt its financial structure after the United Kingdom (U.K.) leaves with its contribution representing 13% of the EU budget?
At the same time, Brexit could have the consequence of demonstrating that the EU has a strategic interest in strengthening its transatlantic ties with Canada to be stronger in its relations with the major players like China and Russia.
Ambassador Costello highlighted the fact that a series of three votes in the U.K. Parliament were taking place during the delegation’s presence in Europe: a vote on that day (12 March) on the Withdrawal Agreement; a vote on 13 March on the possibility of a “no-deal” Brexit; and a third vote on 14 March on the possibility of extending Brexit’s term.
Finally, regarding the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA), Ambassador Costello recalled that while the Agreement’s intent was not obvious at first – it gave the impression of an instrument that could be used against Canada – it is now perceived by both parties as setting up the necessary structure for the 25 dialogues it provides for to take place, parliamentary diplomacy being one of them.
Meeting with Larissa Brunner from the European Policy Center The delegation then met with Larissa Brunner, an analyst at the European Policy Center, an independent not-for-profit think tank, to discuss Brexit.

Ambassador Costello and Alan Bowman, Deputy Head of Mission to the European Union, also participated in that meeting.
In the context of the second vote on the Withdrawal Agreement (but first vote in the series of three) was happening that same evening, Ms. Brunner pointed out two things have changed since the first vote on that Agreement.

First, the clock is ticking with the default scenario of “crashing out” of the EU on 29 March without a deal becoming more plausible.
Second, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker met the day before (11 March) in Strasbourg and it was made clear that the U.K. may not unilaterally withdraw from the Irish backstop arrangement and that there is no time limit to that arrangement.

According to Ms. Brunner, the EU does not like the backstop either: it is seen as giving the U.K. a competitive advantage because of its post-Brexit facilitated access to Ireland, a member of the EU.
The Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has also expressed a fear that Northern Ireland and the U.K. could split up as a consequence of the Brexit deal.

According to Ms. Brunner, members of the U.K. Parliament from different parties may vote in favour of Theresa May’s deal, but nobody really likes the deal.

On the other hand, certain Members of Parliament could vote against the deal if they feel like another option is possible.
She mentioned that the newly formed independent group in the U.K. 1 On 20 March 2019, the EPP Political Assembly voted (190 in favour, 3 against) to suspend Fidesz’ membership, which means that Fidesz will no longer be present at any party meeting; it will no longer have speaking time nor voting rights, nor the right to propose candidates for posts.
Parliament, composed of former Conservative and Labour members who quit their respective parties to show their disappointment with the way their parties have handled Brexit so far, would be in favour of a second referendum (which is estimated to take 22 weeks to organize).
Ms. Brunner pointed out that if the U.K. Parliament decides not to rule out a “no-deal” option, it is not clear what it can agree upon as a positive alternative to a “no-deal.” According to Ms. Brunner, the EU would have to make clear that it will agree to no more extensions, that the agreed-upon extension is only technical.

Without these safeguards, the EU would lose its leverage in the negotiations and the Withdrawal Agreement would be subject to reopening.
In her view, the probability of the EU agreeing on a short extension, which would be followed by a “no-deal”, is still quite high.

Ms. Brunner pointed out that nobody seems to want to be in Theresa May’s position right now, which could explain why she is still there.

Jeremy Corbyn now leads a Labour Party that is divided on Brexit.

In Ms. Brunner’s view, there is a possibility that Theresa May will promise to step down if the vote on the Withdrawal Agreement is defeated.
She noted that under the U.K. fixed date election act, a two-third majority is needed in the U.K. Parliament to have an election before the set date, which is currently set for spring 2020.

The Brexit transition period as set out in the Withdrawal Agreement is currently scheduled to take place until 2020, but that time frame could be extended.

Mr.
Mr.

Bowman mentioned that it could be in the EU’s interest to keep the U.K. within the EU for two more years because the U.K. has not been disruptive (it is France and the Netherlands that are blocking EU’s expansion in the Balkans, for example).

Everyone agreed that keeping close U.K.-EU relations would be in both parties’ interests.

Discussion with Ms. Brunner also touched on the issue of the U.K. legally having to be represented in the European Parliament, as long as it is a member state of the EU.
In particular, she highlighted the number of seats assigned to the U.K., which were to be redistributed between EU member states that were underrepresented in the EU Parliament, such as Ireland.

Norway’s relationship to the EU was also mentioned as a post-Brexit possibility for the U.K.
This would make sense from an economic perspective for the U.K., but it would not make sense from a political perspective, because the four freedoms apply to the Norway- EU relationship (which means that goods, services, capital and persons can move without restriction between Norway and the EU).
In addition, Norway is a policy-taker, not maker, (which means that it applies EU policy as it is decided by EU member states and cannot amend it) and it contributes to the EU budget, but not at the same level as EU member states.

Looking at the post-Brexit world, Ms. Brunner emphasized that the anticipated economic advantages of Brexit have essentially all been discredited, except for the idea that the U.K. could become an independent trading power.
However, this idea is now also threatened by the Irish backstop, which would tie the U.K. to the EU.

From the Canadian perspective, if the U.K. “crashes out” of the EU without a deal, it would no longer be a party to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union, which would be a negative outcome for Canada because the U.K. is our most important trade partner in the EU and the landing country for Canadian companies shipping goods to the EU.
The U.K. finds itself in a difficult situation, desperate to enter in trade agreements with third parties soon – which gives those third parties some leverage – and needing to demonstrate that their new trade agreements are better than the agreements negotiated by the EU that applied to the U.K. before Brexit.

Ambassador Costello concluded that it would be in every party’s interests for Canada to keep close ties with the EU and the U.K. after Brexit.
Meet and greet with trade commissioners at a training session on CETA Ambassador Costello introduced Mr. Simms and Mr. Sorbara to a group of Canadian trade commissioners who were participating in a training session on CETA.

Mr. Simms discussed the state of the seafood industry in his Newfoundland riding, where shrimp, mussels and crab – in particular – are once again part of the transformation industry, which was completely gone before CETA came into force.
Mr. Sorbara mentioned the state of the automotive industry in his riding and the need to reverse the trade balance in favour of Canada under CETA.
Working lunch with trade and business experts During a working lunch on trade and business, the delegation met with Jolana Mungengova, a member of European Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström’s, Cabinet; Renita Bhaskar, who is Deputy Head of Unit at the Canada Desk of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade; Pascal Kerneis, who is the Managing Director of the European Services Forum; Dominic Boucsein, who is the Head of International Trade and Foreign Policy at Eurochambres; Luisa Santos, who is the Director of the International Relations Department of BusinessEurope; and Stéphane Lambert, who is Counsellor and Head of the Trade of the Economic and Science & Technology Policy Section at the Mission of Canada to the European Union.
Ambassador Costello also participated in that meeting.

Highlighting progress on CETA, Ms. Mungengova identified the need to focus more on specific chapters of CETA and to keep close contact with regional authorities in implementing the Agreement.

Mr. Boucsein emphasized the importance of CETA for small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

According to Ms. Bhaskar, there is a need to explain how CETA can work for SMEs’, how it can make their lives easier.
Mr. Boucsein also expressed the need to educate member states about the Agreement and to push for its application.

Ms. Mungengova highlighted the importance of ratifying the agreement; only 12 member states having ratified CETA so far, according to her.

Ms. Santos mentioned that at the national entities’ level, the policy experts are not necessarily well coordinated with the people who work with businesses.
She mentioned two member states that represent a challenge for CETA’s ratification: Italy, because of the government in place; and France, because of some resistance in the population (the “gilets jaunes” movement, for example).

Ms. Santos mentioned the existence of advisory groups on CETA’s implementation, whose main challenge is to make sure that the decisions made at the EU level are mirrored at the member state level.
Ambassador Costello mentioned that new mechanisms were created under CETA, which give civil society organizations a role in implementing the Agreement.

According to Ms. Mungengova, when civil society organizations have issues with CETA’s implementation, they should first raise them with the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade.

Mr. Kerneis highlighted the difficulty that lies in demonstrating the benefits of CETA that are related to services, which represent 60% of the agreement itself.
In his view, the real added value of CETA is the fact that provinces are parties to the Agreement and the possibility for European companies to bid on public procurement contracts, for example.

Unfortunately, according to Mr. Kerneis, the services and procurement chapter is not well- known, even if services represent approximately 75% of Canada and the EU’s respective gross domestic product and 30% of trade.
In his view, the complexity of services needs to be worked out and explained to industries and governments.

Mr. Kerneis also addressed some criticism to both the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade and the Canadian government: data on trade in services is lacking.

Mr. Boucsein agreed that more could be done on getting data, which would lead to a better monitoring of the trade situation.
Ms. Mungengova added that the European Commission has only started recently to publish some information regarding jobs related to CETA.

She argued that in future, there will be a need for data related to artificial intelligence and for cooperation among statistical bodies to exchange information and obtain clarity about the origin of the data.
Mr. Lambert mentioned that, looking at the trade balance between Canada and the EU, it is important to acknowledge the fact that the export of gold – especially to the U.K. – is influencing numbers (EU exports are appearing at a 90% increase, but taking gold out of the equation brings them nearly to an even balance).

He mentioned that he is not concerned by CETA’s implementation, while expressing the need for economists and statisticians to come together and work on the data.
Mr. Kerneis mentioned that CETA is providing more market access, opening 37 sectors for contract suppliers, which is a first.

Mr. Lambert argued that if the first effort was to raise awareness regarding CETA, the second wave – “CETA 2.0” – should be about explaining how CETA can apply in specific sectors.

Ms. Mungengova added that there is joint work on climate protection under CETA; the parties involved will need to show how the Agreement contributes to that objective.
Ms. Santos noted that recent events showed that it was difficult to find companies that could talk about climate change; the parties involved will need to raise the companies’ awareness in that regard.
Ms. Bhaskar noted that there is also a need to work on the enforcement of CETA: the conformity assessment protocol on the EU side; and making sure that geographical indications (GIs) are treated in a non-discriminatory manner on the Canadian side (the example of Ontario wine was mentioned, as well as the case of cheese).
Ms. Mungengova noted that in the next European Parliament election there will be a push for a more protectionist Europe; the answer to this push should be to show that enforcement works under the existing structures.

However, Ms. Bhaskar noted that it is important not to fall into populist arguments in making that point.
Ms. Santos added that there will be a temptation to push for more protectionism in the next European Parliament election, where extreme left and extreme right will be working together, even if they do not have the same objectives.

Meeting with representatives of the European External Action Service The delegation met with Javier Nino Perez and Maja Urbanska, respectively Head and Deputy Head of the United States and Canada Division of the European External Action Service (EEAS).
These representatives mentioned that the upcoming EU-Canada summit in April 2019 should be a positive event because of the success of CETA and SPA and of our shared values and objectives when it comes to international relations (our attachment to a rules-based order and a common will to reform the WTO, for example).

It was mentioned that under the SPA, there is a formal process in place to look at new areas of cooperation, an institutional framework that helps the relationship to evolve moving forward.
The meeting of female foreign ministers last year, for example, was a great success in that regard.

According to the EEAS representatives, the intention to sign an “Ocean Partnership” will also be discussed at the upcoming summit.

Mr. Nino Perez and Ms. Urbanska highlighted the fact that there is an agreement on research in force between Canada and the EU, and that Canada is one of the EU’s most important partners in that field.
Regarding security, they highlighted the fact that Canadians are involved in three EU military missions (Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Armed Forces are currently deployed in Ukraine, Mali and the West Bank).

Regarding the integration of migrants, Mr. Nino Perez argued for the need to show that the Canadian model is working, which is far from the current situation in the EU.
The EEAS representatives also mentioned that Canada and the EU are at the final phase of negotiating an agreement allowing Canada to send observers in elections taking place in the EU.
According to Mr. Nino Perez, Canada and the EU will need to be creative regarding a number of issues related to the upcoming elections in the European Parliament and in Canada: cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, 5G and the role of China, connectivity, net neutrality (where a clash with the United States could occur), data collection, etc.

Mr. Nino Perez hoped that extremist parties will not get more than 20% support in the upcoming European Parliament election.
In his view, if liberal members get between 50 to 70% of the seats, Parliament will be able to function normally.

The role of social media in the upcoming elections was also discussed; where the rise of extremism could have a negative impact on the turnout.

Mr. Nino Perez acknowledged that political interference will be a big issue in the upcoming European Parliament election.
He noted that an EU Action plan on disinformation was published recently by the EEAS and could be used by member states as a “cyber toolbox” to coordinate their actions and deal with threats during the campaign.

The G7 Rapid Response Mechanism, announced at the G7 Charlevoix Summit in June 2018, could be a bridge among G7 members to strengthen coordination in dealing with threats to their democracies.
PARTICIPATION IN THE 40TH ANNUAL INTER-PARLIAMENTARY MEETING On 13 March 2019, Mr. Bogusław Liberadzki, Vice-President of the European Parliament, hosted a working dinner for the delegation and members of the DRC.

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, M.P., also joined the Canadian delegation for this event.

During the dinner, Mr. Liberadzki highlighted the fact that the European and Canadian parliaments enjoy lasting and positive diplomatic relations in addition to sharing similar values.
Mr. Simms discussed CETA’s ratification, migration, climate change and the upcoming elections in both parliaments.

The issue of Brexit took centre stage as the second vote – on the possibility of a “no-deal” Brexit – in the series of three votes, was taking place in the U.K.’s Parliament at the same time.

On 14 March 2019, the delegation participated in the 40th Annual Inter-Parliamentary Meeting between the European Parliament and the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Erskine- Smith joined Mr. Simms and Mr. Sorbara for the meeting.

On the European side, Bernd Kölmel, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany and Chair of the DRC; Deirdre Clune (MEP from Ireland); Kathleen Van Brempt (MEP from Belgium); Paul Brannen (MEP from the U.K.); Jérôme Lavrilleux (MEP from France); Davor Skrlec (MEP from Croatia); and Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (MEP from Germany) participated in the meeting.
The issues of migration; upcoming elections in the European Parliament and Canada, climate change and energy, Brexit, and CETA were discussed.

Migration A diversity of points of view were expressed on the sensitive issue of migration and integration of migrants.

Mr. Kölmel argued that the force of the EU lies in its differences; however, he sees a problem – since 2015 – in the number of migrants entering the EU.
In his view, Canada seems to have the right approach by applying a list of criteria as conditions for migrants to come to Canada.

Mr. Kölmel argued that the rules applying to migration management need to be clear and that investments are needed in the countries of origin to help them manage migration.

According to him, Germany is an example of what not to do when it comes to managing migration.
Mr. Kölmel argued that Germany needs skilled immigrants, but people coming to Germany are mostly not skilled and Germans now have to pay for that situation.

All three Canadian MPs highlighted the inclusive nature of immigration in Canada and argued that it can also be an opportunity to grow the Canadian work force, the economy.

Mr. Sorbara pointed out that controlled immigration is generally seen as positive in Canada.
If approximately 350,000 immigrants come to Canada every year, there are still not enough workers for the jobs available in Canadian companies.

Mr. Simms mentioned that keeping migrants in rural areas, where some companies are shutting down because of the lack of employees, is a major challenge.

In the same vein, Mr. Erskine-Smith mentioned that the 4 to 1 ratio of workers to retired people at present in Canada will soon become a ratio of 2 to 1.
Mr. Sorbara also pointed out that specialized workers can immigrate to Canada easily and within a few weeks.

Regarding refugees, Mr. Sorbara highlighted the fact that it is the 30th anniversary of the successful private sponsorship program.

Mr. Erskine-Smith added that the success of refugees’ integration has increased because of the private sponsorship program.
Mr. Sorbara argued that, unfortunately, some political parties and persons have been trying to take advantage of fears related to irregular border crossings into Canada, which have also increased in 2017 and in 2018.

Mr. Erskine-Smith recalled that irregular migrants are mostly entering Canada to claim asylum for humanitarian reasons.

Ms. Van Brempt argued that it is very difficult to address economic migration in the EU because of the high number of arrivals through irregular migration.
According to Ms. Van Brempt, the EU should strengthen partnerships with African countries to tackle the humanitarian issues related to migration before migrants leave.

Mr. Brannen mentioned the role that immigration played in the Brexit campaign.

He gave the example of a survey in the North-East of England, where people were saying that immigrants represented approximately 20 to 30% of the population, when the reality was closer to 3%.
According to him, there is ignorance regarding immigration in the British population.

In his view, the left in the U.K. has difficulty dealing with the argument that immigrants are taking “our” jobs, which are in fact low-salary jobs at unsocial hours without benefits that British people do not want.

Ms. Clune highlighted that the issues of migration and the fight against populism will be major themes during the upcoming elections in the European Parliament.
Upcoming Elections in the European Parliament and Canada On the issue of upcoming elections and legislative activity, Ms. Clune recalled that the new European Commission – which will take place in the months following the elections – will have to be approved by the European Parliament and that a gap in legislative progress is to be expected from April to November 2019.

She also recalled that Spain and Finland are going to hold national elections soon, in addition to the European Parliament elections.
Ms. Clune argued that close attention will need to be given to the role that far-right parties will play in these upcoming elections.

She mentioned that if there is a Brexit extension, the U.K. will have the legal obligation to send representatives to the EU institutions.

In her view, the debate around Brexit has heightened the value of being members of the EU.

Mr. Simms explained that Canadian legislation provides for federal elections to be held on a fixed date, the next one being 21 October 2019.
In his view, the upcoming Canadian elections will be a two-party race more than ever before.

Mr. Simms also mentioned that a new party, the People’s Party of Canada – which is on the right of the Conservative Party of Canada – will be added to the mix; it uses populist arguments, such as the ones put forward by the “gilets jaunes” movement.

He also expressed the wish for Canada and the European Parliament to find ways to counter expected low turnout.
Ms. Clune argued that one of the problems that the European Parliament faces is the impression in the population that there is a disconnect between the EU and local issues and politics; people do not necessarily see EU politics as having an impact on their lives.

In the same vein, Ms. Van Brempt added that the EU is seen as being an extra layer away from the population.

Mr. Kölmel agreed that people see the EU as being more remote and technical than local governments.
Climate Change and Energy Turning to environmental issues, Ms. Van Brempt noted that there will be a vote on the same day in the European Parliament on a common resolution from the main parties that by 2050, all of Europe needs to be carbon-neutral and that it needs to step up its efforts to reach its 2030 targets.

In her view, the EU and Canada are better placed to tackle climate change than countries like China, for example.
Mr. Brannen argued that the agriculture sector needs to be challenged – in both the EU and Canada – on key issues such as soils, reducing the production and consumption of meat and dairy, and agro- forestry.

He added that the use of concrete – which is responsible for a major portion of green-gas emissions – needs to be curbed, while at the same time the use of wood in buildings, for example, needs to be incentivized.
Mr. Kölmel argued that Germany is not focusing on the right things when it comes to climate change, that it is not spending money wisely (on resource-intensive electric cars, for example).

He expressed the need for a more comprehensive way to tackle climate change in the EU.

Mr. Erskine-Smith argued that climate change is Canada’s most important challenge and that radical changes are needed in that regard, in both the EU and Canada.
He gave the example of British Columbia, where political support can be gained from carbon-pricing measures.

Mr. Erskine-Smith also mentioned the need for the EU and Canada to share best practices on this issue.

Brexit On the issue of Brexit, Mr. Brannen noted that it is difficult to follow the Brexit debate and negotiations when even the British prime minister does not seem to know what the situation is.
In his view, the different political scenarios all come with their share of difficulties and they will have an impact on individual people’s lives (their driver’s licence, their passport, etc.).

He argued that Theresa May will probably offer two options to the U.K. Parliament: her deal or no Brexit, which would be the consequence of an indefinite extension.
Mr. Brannen noted that the Conservatives are opposed to the possibility of establishing a customs union between the EU and the U.K. because it would mean freedom of movement.

He also noted that during the Brexit referendum, the U.K. did not want the EU to get involved: only the Irish agriculture minister, Phil Hogan, was allowed to take part in debates (in favour of the remain option).

Mr. Brannen regretted that no one else from outside the U.K. was allowed to participate in the debate at the time.
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Regarding CETA, Mr. Simms mentioned that only 13 member states have ratified or are in the process of finalizing the ratification of the Agreement and that more work on that front is needed.

Ms. Quisthoudt-Rowohl noted in that regard that local politics are involved in CETA’s ratification: some member states are dragging their heels on purpose.
For example, she noted that some members of French president Emmanuel Macron’s party, La République en marche, are against CETA.

Ms. Quisthoudt-Rowohl mentioned that trade volumes and numbers indicate a positive outcome for the Agreement.
She noted that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)’s opinion on the compatibility of the Agreement with EU law is yet to be made public; but the opinion of CJEU’s Advocate General was published in January 2019 and concludes that the mechanism for the settlement of disputes between investors and states provided for by CETA is compatible with EU law.
Ms. Quisthoudt-Rowohl noted that German export volumes to Canada have grown and that other export data point to growth, and that the positive data for Austria is even more significant.

In her view, the fact that most EU exporters are SMEs should be emphasized in promoting the Agreement.

Ms. Quisthoudt-Rowohl also noted an increase in trade volumes for EU cheese exporters, who have increased protection for GIs under CETA.
She considers that, overall, CETA has had a positive impact and that the initial criticism of it has died down.

In general, she believes that civil society needs to be involved properly in the implementation of international trade agreements.
As an example of CETA’s positive impact in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Simms mentioned seafood exports, in general, and a shrimp plant, in particular, that was resurrected thanks to the deletion of the 20% tariff line that used to be imposed on the plant’s exports.

Mr. Sorbara emphasized the fact that CETA is not only an agricultural agreement: it is a comprehensive economic and trade agreement.
He also argued that jobs are being created in Canada due to CETA – in ports, for example – even if trade volumes have not increased in Canada’s favour and that more education is needed on the possibilities offered by the Agreement.
Mr. Erskine-Smith highlighted the apparent contradiction between the stringent provisions contained in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation – in force throughout the EU since May 2018 – and the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, on one side, and U.S. legislation and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, on the other.

How will these rules be harmonized and how will Canada reconcile these different sets of requirements in dealing with the EU and the United States?
In that regard, Ms. Quisthoudt-Rowohl noted that there would be a vote in the European Parliament later that day on the possibility of starting negotiations on sectorial products with the United States.

She argued that recently negotiated free trade agreements, such as the ones between the EU and Japan and the EU and Singapore, are not only economic in nature.

In that sense, she considers that CETA was a signal sent to the United States.
According to Ms. Quisthoudt-Rowohl, a complete harmonization of rules between the EU and the United States from the beginning is impossible; the EU does not want agricultural products from the U.S. to come freely in the EU.

After the IPM, the delegation visited the European Parliament’s hemicycle and attended debates and votes.
Among other resolutions presented that day, the European Parliament notably adopted resolutions on climate change (“a European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy in accordance with the Paris Agreement”) and on a European human rights violations sanctions regime (inspired by the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which targets the Russian officials deemed responsible for the death of Russian tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky).
The draft resolution on EU-U.S. trade negotiations, referred to by Ms. Quisthoudt-Rowohl during the IPM, was not adopted by the European Parliament.

The delegation ended its mission by participating in a working lunch hosted by Mr. Kölmel, which allowed final points to be made on the different debates that took place throughout the IPM and highlighting the constructive and fruitful outcome of the meeting.

Finally, Mr. Kölmel and Mr. Simms signed the appended joint statement.
It highlights the fact that during this term, the Canadian Parliament and the European Parliament adopted two important agreements: the Strategic Partnership Agreement, “which provides a more ambitious framework for deepening the political and parliamentary cooperation between Canada and the EU”, and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, “which is already leading to more trade and prosperity for our people.” It concludes by restating the signatories’ confidence that the cooperation between Canada and the EU will continue to flourish in the new parliaments.
Respectfully submitted, Mr. Scott Simms, M.P.

Chair Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association Appendix 1 ASSOCIATION ACTIVITY DESTINATION DATES DELEGATION SENATE HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF TRANSPORTATION ACCOMMODATION PER DIEMS OFFICIAL GIFTS TOTAL Travel Costs Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association 40th Annual Inter-Parliamentary Meeting between the European Parliament and the Parliament of Canada Strasbourg, France and Brussels, Belgium March 12-14, 2019 Hon.

Scott Simms, M.P.
Scott Simms, M.P.

and Head of Delegation Mr. Francesco Sorbara, M.P.

Ms. Madalina Chesoi, Advisor* Mr. Maxime-Olivier Thibodeau, Advisor $ 29,454.40 $ 4,233.43 $ 1,937.22 $ 34.83 $ 35,659.88 * expenses paid by the Library of Parliament for training purposes