:
Thank you, and good morning, everyone.
Thank you for inviting us to speak to you today about the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, known as the CETA. As requested, I will provide an overview of the negotiations. Then Gilles Gauthier, Canada’s chief agriculture negotiator, will focus on agriculture and agrifood issues implicated by the CETA.
A Canada-EU CETA would provide us with preferential access to the largest market in the world. The EU, made up of some 27 member states with a total population of nearly 500 million, and a GDP of over $19 trillion Canadian, is already our second-largest trading partner. We have many historical, economic, and cultural ties with the EU, so the EU is an obvious trading partner for Canada.
Canada has sought a free trade agreement with the EU for a very long time. After extensive advocacy by Canadian political leaders and government officials, and a significant effort by the private sector, negotiations toward a CETA were officially launched in Prague at the May 2009 Canada-EU summit. There, leaders agreed that we would aim for a high level of ambition in the negotiations and work toward completion of the negotiations within two years.
For Canada, this is by far the biggest free trade negotiation we have undertaken since the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which has been in place for more than 20 years, along with the NAFTA that came after it.
In the CETA negotiations we are aiming to go further than we went in the NAFTA negotiations, both with respect to the range of issues to be covered and with respect to the depth of ambition. On the part of the EU, they too are aiming to go further than they have gone in any previous free trade agreement.
So far, Canada and the EU have held five negotiating rounds, with the sixth to take place in mid-January in Brussels. We have been making progress at a good pace. Even though we have moved past the easy issues and the focus is now on key points of differences, we continue to make good progress.
Key milestones in the negotiations thus far include: we have had a consolidated text covering all 22 areas of the negotiations since last fall. Of these, we have completed or parked four chapters, and expect four more to be parked or closed at the next round in January. In the remaining chapters, issues have been narrowed down to key differences, which are now the focus of our efforts.
We have exchanged initial offers on goods, which would have 90% of all tariffs to go duty-free immediately upon implementation of the agreement. We have also exchanged detailed requests in the areas of government procurement, services, and investment.
We expect to exchange second offers on goods covering the remaining 10% of tariffs and our first offers in government procurement, services, and investment shortly after the next round of negotiations, scheduled for January.
In the area of goods, the remaining 10% of tariffs on which we have not yet made offers contain various sensitive issues, including autos, fish, and various agricultural issues. In particular, a large proportion of the EU’s remaining 10% of tariffs is made up of agricultural products.
Our approach to market access in these negotiations is different from that taken in other negotiations. We are negotiating market access as a whole, rather than focusing specifically on tariffs alone. We want to achieve real market access, and are working on what it actually takes to get into the market. Many of the barriers that our exporters face into the EU relate to barriers other than tariffs.
To achieve the objective of effective market access, we are pursuing the following.
We have attached conditions to our tariff offers, such as negotiating satisfactory rules of origin that take into account the highly integrated North American market. We are also paying particular attention to non-tariff barriers, especially in the area of regulatory standards. Bridging gaps between the EU standards and our standards—whether on a North American basis, a Canadian basis, or a provincial and territorial basis—will be essential to the free flow of goods between our markets. We are also negotiating a chapter on regulatory cooperation to try to prevent problems before they occur. This will be the first time in any free trade agreement that a chapter on regulatory cooperation is included.
Notably, provinces and territories are closely engaged, with some 50 to 60 representatives joining us at the negotiating rounds and attending negotiating sessions in areas wholly or partially under their jurisdiction, the only time they have been so closely involved in an international trade negotiation. As the EU’s top interest in this negotiation is sub-federal government procurement, provinces and territories are aiming for a very high level of ambition in their government procurement offers and are asking to get paid in other areas. Agricultural market access is a very high if not a top priority for many of them, particularly for Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
It's not just the provinces and territories that have made their priorities very clear. Our consultation process in this negotiation has been the most extensive and open process we've ever had in a trade negotiation. We consult regularly with industry and with civil society in a variety of formats, from large groups to individual meetings. Some of the most active and vocal participants include agricultural stakeholders, who have been very clear in setting out objectives for this negotiation and the areas in which they would like to see real gains.
Of course, there are gains beyond goods' market access. We have been pushing the Europeans hard in other areas, including services, investment, and labour mobility. The Europeans are pressuring us on government procurement and intellectual property, including geographical indications, and while we already have a wine and spirits agreement with the EU that recognizes certain geographical indications, the EU is pressing hard for the recognition of GIs for other agricultural products and foodstuffs.
The CETA is a unique and important opportunity for Canada, and we are committed to an ambitious agreement. Our Minister of International Trade, Minister Van Loan, will meet with his EU counterpart, Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, to take stock of progress in the negotiations in mid-December here in Ottawa. We will then have a sixth round of negotiations in Brussels in January followed by a further round in Ottawa in April.
I will now turn the floor over to Gilles, who will provide an overview of sector-specific issues within the CETA negotiations.
Gilles.
It is a pleasure to here today for the first time in my capacity as Chief Agriculture Negotiator.
From the perspective of the agriculture sector, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, commonly called CETA, negotiations offer unique opportunities in terms of enhanced market access for our producers.
As you are aware, Canada is a major player in agriculture world trade. Canada is the fourth largest agri-food exporter and sixth largest importer. Our sustained growth and prosperity depends on our ability to compete effectively in global trade and to penetrate new markets.
More specifically, a large segment of the Canadian agricultural sector relies on access to foreign markets. This is especially true for the livestock, grains, pulses, and oilseeds sectors. So trade negotiations, such as the CETA negotiations, are important for creating new market opportunities for our farmers and exporters.
The EU represents a large and valuable market for Canada's agriculture and agri-food products. It is the largest agri-food product import market in the world, absorbing 13% of the world agriculture imports.
In 2009, agri-food trade between Canada and the EU was worth over $5.6 billion. Over the last three years, EU purchases of Canadian agri-food products have represented 19% of our pulse exports, more than 18% of our durum wheat exports, roughly 7% of our common wheat exports, and 7% of our oilseeds exports.
There is no doubt that an agreement with the EU holds great potential to deepen this already significant trade relationship. Canada's objective in these negotiations is to achieve an ambitious outcome that will advance the interests of Canadian farmers and that will provide clear benefits for our agriculture sector.
This means achieving important market access improvements for our agricultural products, in particular for beef, pork, grains and processed foods. And, of course, Canada will continue to defend the interests of the supply-managed sectors in these negotiations, as it has done in all other trade negotiations.
[English]
Here are some examples of trade barriers we aim to address in the Canada-EU negotiations.
While the recent agreement will enable Canada to obtain access to a new EU duty-free quota for hormone-free beef, our beef exports will still be subject to a quantitative limitation, above which tariffs equivalent up to 142% are applicable.
Despite being a world leader for pork and pork products, we have currently minuscule exports of pork entering the European market, because we face significant in-quota and out-of-quota tariffs that range from 32% up to 70%, and currently, only two Canadian pork processors are certified to ship into the EU market.
Our durum wheat enjoys a solid reputation among European consumers, especially given its high quality for bread and pasta production. While our exports generally enjoy duty-free treatment, they are still subject to quantitative restrictions.
Many other Canadian agrifood products could benefit also from a more liberal access to the EU market. I refer to such products as berries, potatoes, and maple syrup, to name only a few.
In addition, these negotiations also present an opportunity to tackle non-tariff barriers, notably in the area of sanitary and phytosanitary issues, as well as other technical barriers to trade that limit our access for agricultural products.
Canada is also seeking to address key concerns in relation to biotechnology, including greater timelines in the EU regulatory approval process for genetically modified organisms--GMOs--as well as greater predictability for our trade in cases of low-level presence of GMO organisms in agricultural exports from Canada. This is particularly important for all our grain sectors.
Finally, Canada is seeking strong commitments in relation to export subsidies, and this issue has been a long-standing problem for Canadian agricultural exporters. The European Union has the capacity, by far, to be the world's largest provider of export subsidies.
We are moving forward, working closely with provincial governments and in consultation with the full range of Canada's agricultural and agrifood industry stakeholders in order to advance Canada's interests in these negotiations.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to address any questions you or members of the committee may have on the agriculture file in these negotiations.
:
Thank you, anyway, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, folks, to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
There's no question that the Canada-EU FTA is something worth pursuing. There seems to be relatively general agreement on that. As you mentioned, Steve, in your opening remarks, followed up by Mr. Gauthier, one of the key areas that is still in dispute, certainly, seems to be the agriculture side. One of the key areas of concern is with supply management.
On June 15 you were before the international trade committee, Steve. You said at the time, and I quote:
At the time the negotiations were launched, there was an agreement that there was to be a no-exclusion a priori... That essentially left it open to each side to make proposals on anything of interest to them.
It's up to the European Union to make proposals that may relate to products under supply management.
I think the literal interpretation of this is that supply management is on the table, in the beginning. Is that correct?
:
So then what concerns me on the supply management side...and you know, it's interesting; I tabled some information the other day from Peter Clark relative to the U.S. subsidies. They are massively supporting their industry, while we continue to play the boy scout. In fact, on the supply management side, his figures would lead us to believe that in the United States, they are actually subsidized to the tune of 32¢ per litre in Canadian dollars.
Yet we have to compete against that. We're under pressure from processors in Canada that claim they can bring in, cheaper, cheese products, etc., for their pizzas. But they are being subsidized at 32¢ a litre in the United States when you take all into consideration.
I make that point because we have a free trade agreement with the United States, and we find our supply management industry under attack by them, but yet they are highly subsidized.
So in terms of going forward, what concerns me about the current government is that they did make this statement in 2004 in their policy position, and I wonder if you could outline to me if this is where we're going or not.
It stated as follows:
A Conservative government will ensure that any agreement which impacts supply management gives our producers guaranteed access to foreign markets, and that there will be a significant transition period in any move towards a market-driven environment.
My question to you is this: in terms of the negotiations, are we looking at keeping the current supply management system, or are we to negotiate a transition period that would eventually move us toward a market-driven environment?
:
Okay. That's good, I appreciate that.
Turning to page two of your remarks, Steve, you go into the “barriers other than tariffs”.
I believe, Mr. Gauthier, you mentioned in your remarks the latest agreement, which I think was a good agreement--I believe it's 20,000 tonnes of non-GMO or hormone-free beef into to Europe--but we still face the equivalent of a 142% tariff on other beef exports to the EU.
I wonder if either of you could expand on those barriers other than tariffs, because I think that's what is not often understood. Most people think it's just tariffs, but there are a lot of issues, such as hormones in beef.
Could you just expand on those?
:
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here.
I have a number of questions on agriculture, but I also have some general questions on some information I've found in my research from a document entitled Negotiating from Weakness, by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that.
It seems to me, looking at this agreement, it's more about European access to our government procurement, public services, municipalities, than it is about trade. I find this a bit disturbing.
I'll quote from the document in a few places, as follows:
In December 2009, the EU presented its initial market access requests covering procurement to Canada.
At the federal level, they have demanded that Canada cover: “All central government entities and all other central public entities including subordinated entities of central government....”
For greater certainty, the EU specifically lists a large number of federal entities currently not covered under international procurement agreements. Consider just two examples from this European list--the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Space Agency. Hampering the procurement policies of the Wheat Board, which has a statutory monopoly to market wheat and barley grown in western Canada, complements the EU’s publicly-stated goal of dismantling the Board, which it reiterated at the outset of negotiations. The Canadian Space Agency provides hundreds of millions of dollars annually....
In other words, both of these, according to this document, could be under threat.
The document also says:
They have, as at the federal level, demanded universal coverage of “All sub-central government entities including those operating at the local, regional or municipal level....All entities operating in the so-called M.A.S.H sector (municipalities, municipal organizations, school boards and publicly funded academic, health and social service entities)....”
The impression I'm getting is that these subnational governments won't have any control over local procurement. In other words, instead of trying to provide jobs to local companies, companies will have to compete with major European multinationals. So that's my question in general.
In agriculture, I would like your comment with regard to the UPOV 1991 version of the plant breeders act. According to the information I've received, that would virtually eliminate farmers' rights to save, reuse, and sell seed, so I'd like some comments on that.
Also, with regard to the geographical indications, I know that's a real concern for dairy farmers. The other concern they have is that although things are going along well, there is a chance at the last moment they may throw cheese on the table and say that everything's fine, give us access to your cheese market. Is there that chance?
And the last question I have is with regard to pulses. Right now there are no import duties on non-processed products but there are on processed. So would that change if this agreement were signed?
I'll stop there.
I'll start with a response to the procurement question, and I'll leave the agriculture questions to my colleague.
With respect to procurement, particularly at the provincial and territorial and municipal level, the EU has made it clear across the board that they have very strong offensive interests in that area. The EU claims to be the most open government procurement market in the world, so they're looking for that same kind of access in other markets.
We have been assessing the EU's request, and certainly when you make requests in a negotiation like this, you aim very high. And they did aim very high, just as we aim very high in our requests of them. So we shouldn't assume they will be getting everything they're asking for because that certainly won't be the case.
We will certainly be making some moves into the provincial and territorial agencies, as well as federal agencies and municipalities, but we're also looking very closely at the EU approach to government procurement so we can reflect all the flexibilities they have built into their system that allow for the kinds of practices you mentioned. So we're engaged in that process now.
We also need to keep in mind that we're negotiating fairly high thresholds, which would mean that anything under these thresholds would not be subject to the obligations of the agreement. Procurement for construction, for example, the threshold is $8.5 million. Anything under that would not be subject to the discipline.
There are also flexibilities for security-related issues, defence-related issues. All of that is exempted. There are a series of exemptions that limit the amount of access and provide certain flexibilities to those offering procurement.
So we're still at the stage now where we're about to exchange offers on procurement. Then we'll see how serious the European side is about some of these specific issues and take it from there.
:
On your agriculture question regarding UPOV 1991, it's important to note that this international treaty was signed by Canada, and it's up to Canada now to decide to ratify it and to decide how and when to implement it. It's not necessarily related to the CETA negotiations. In UPOV 1991, there is a provision dealing with the right of farmers to save their seed. I think this is more a domestic policy decision. We have to decide how and when to implement UPOV 1991, since we're already a signatory to that treaty.
As to geographical indications, as Steve mentioned, this is an issue of significant interest to the European Union. We have embarked on a fairly detailed discussion on this issue in the negotiation. In our view, if we were to adapt some of the GI concept currently in existence in Europe, this would need to be done in a way that is consistent with our existing framework on trademarks and the use of generic or common names in the marketplace. That's the approach we're taking. Taking into account the two principles of federal protection of existing trademarks and the protection for common or generic names, are there other ways we can accommodate the EU request for protection for some of the European GIs? That's our approach.
With respect to pulse, you're quite right that all the pulse are currently imported duty-free in Europe. For the processed product, though, they are subject to several fairly complicated tariff structures. Our objective is to liberalize all the processed products so that we can have access to that huge market.
Lastly, for cheese, it's up to the Europeans to submit a proposal on cheese. Canada already imports large quantities of European cheese, more than $150 million per year. European cheese accounts for 3% to 4% of the Canadian domestic market. In no product does Canada have such a market share in Europe. So we are starting from a position of strength here in dealing with market access.
:
Just as a last word on beef, I was negotiating in CETA a preferential access to the European market that would certainly put our producers in a much more competitive context vis-à-vis other exporters of Latin America or elsewhere, and I think they'll be able to seize a greater share of that huge European market.
On pork, we have exported less than a thousand tonnes of pork to Europe. The European market is 20 million tonnes, so you can see the great scope here. Even if a decimal proportion of the EU market were to be liberalized or made accessible to pork producers, this could represent a huge opportunity for them.
On the question of grains, eliminating all the quantitative restrictions that we're facing will enable us to make commercial decisions as to whether or not we want to ship more to Europe. In relation to grain, I think an important issue that we need to start a dialogue on with the Europeans is on the question of biotechnology products. We faced some challenges last year for flax. There are potential areas where we could face new hurdles if we are to penetrate the EU market.
I think that in CETA here, not only do we want to secure tangible market access for some of the commodities, but we will also want to create a framework that would enable a bit more predictability to our trade through a rules-based approach in how we govern our trade relationship.
I think you have both avenues of making tangible benefits on the market access side, but also a rules-based system to govern our trade.
:
I think it has been a long-standing concern of Canada that the European Union has the capacity and has the tools to subsidize far more than we do. So that's why in the WTO context we've been aggressive in trying to introduce more discipline in the use of subsidies by the major players, notably the European Union and the United States.
Then you need to look at issues product by product. For many of the products where we feel we can be competitive in world markets, the issue of subsidy is still relevant. But I think we can still be competitive and active in that market despite the subsidies. If we can resolve some of the subsidy issues through a multilateral context, all the better for our producers.
For other sectors, in the context of the supply-managed sector, when you compare things between Canada and Europe, you have to devise a model by which you attribute to the supply-managed sector the value of the subsidy that comes from the border protection that they need to have in order to sustain the supply-managed sector.
So you have difficulty trying to reconcile different ways of subsidies. Some are more trade-distorting than others, some are more income support, others are more production support. So you have to be able to devise a methodology that is somewhat neutral. Of course that's why the difference of perspective between each country, because each country would devise a methodology that suits their interests more.
We've had some 20 years of experience with the NAFTA dispute settlement model, which is very much similar to the WTO dispute settlement model. So we think we're in a good position to try to learn from some mistakes, or some inefficiencies in those models.
We are trying to design an approach to dispute settlement that is going to be much more effective and efficient, reducing the timelines, streamlining the process in ways we can. We're also exploring the notion of a mediation mechanism so you could have an alternative track to dispute settlement that wouldn't necessarily take you down the whole process of a dispute settlement formal panel and all of the rest that can take up to a couple of years.
So between the notion of having a mediation mechanism to try to resolve a lot of these disputes as an alternative to the longer process, we're also trying to design an approach within dispute settlement that will be more efficient and move through the issues more quickly.
We're also trying to find approaches that will make sure the kinds of cases that come before dispute settlement aren't frivolous cases but are actually significant, economically important issues.
:
Thank you, Steve and Gilles, for coming up. Your task is no doubt daunting.
Mr. Lemieux spoke about all of the benefits that are available to Canadians through a free trade agreement. No doubt there are, but I guess the question is, at what cost? We know that sometimes we will go and buy something at any cost because we want it so badly and we forget what we're really giving up.
I have two questions. One surrounds procurement--you've mentioned it several times, Steve, in your document--and rights of access particularly to our natural resources like water, oil, and other minerals, and also actually the right to bid on local projects, such as water systems and things like that.
You know, we very quickly label people “protectionist” because they want to support local industry. I think that's very unfair. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't; I think you need to have options.
I'm concerned at the $8.5 million threshold that you're talking about. For some municipalities, $8.5 million might be high, never reached, and for some--Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal--very low.
So I want your opinion on this. You need to appease the concerns of Canadians about those particular issues, and I'd like you to address that.
Secondly, Gilles, you talked about GMOs. In our discussions on Bill C-474, one of the solutions that was suggested was that we negotiate low-level presence with other countries so it would appease their concerns and give us access to markets we don't otherwise have. Can you talk more about that?
I'll start with Steve.
When we started looking into the issue of procurement at the provincial and municipal levels, the first thing we found out was that there is already a very open system, by and large. Municipalities and provinces often tend to go to where they can get the best deals and the lowest prices. European companies have been significantly involved in a lot of those procurement contracts already.
So we're talking here about making the determination on what we want to subject to obligations in this agreement. We've been engaged in extensive consultations with the provinces, territories, and municipalities about what they're prepared to include under the government procurement obligations. It will certainly be their decision in the end as to what they feel comfortable including. But they are also very interested to know exactly what that will mean if they are captured by the disciplines. How much is that going to limit their flexibility? How much is it going to constrain some of the objectives they might have?
As I mentioned earlier, there are a considerable number of flexibilities built into the system. Certainly nothing in any of the procurement provisions is going to prevent municipalities or provinces from regulating and ensuring that the kinds of policy objectives they want to achieve are maintained.
So we're going through a long process of consultation, and we'll be going in the direction of those procurements only in areas where the authorities are comfortable with the decision.
On low-level presence, this is an issue we want to raise in the context of these negotiations to provide a better framework with a bit more predictability to the trade.
We're also pursuing a parallel approach. As you know, the European Union has already announced that they're looking at ways of dealing with this issue. They will be submitting a proposal in January for their council's approval. It is designed, in part at least, to provide a bit more predictability to the trade. That means allowing a low-level presence as part of a shipment.
It is important for us to ensure that the measures being implemented serve our overall export interests in the EU market, but we also need to be cognizant that the issue of GMO is very sensitive in Europe. We need to approach this issue from a practical standpoint and ensure that over time there is more predictability to the trade.
The EU needs to import a lot of feed from Canada and elsewhere. It is in their interest as well to have a predictable import regime for products in the grain sector. We can work with them to try to devise a solution that will be practical, recognizing the political challenge they're facing in Europe on the issue of GMO generally.
:
Thank you, gentlemen. I am going to turn to Mr. Gauthier. I represent the riding of Compton—Stanstead where agricultural production is very prevalent, as is organic farming.
I want to go back to the issue of supply management. The issue always comes up because it's not the first time that attempts have been made to abolish supply management. I don't understand something. You said earlier that the EU wanted to abolish supply management because it was negotiable.
In your view, why would the European Union want to negotiate supply management when it is, itself, moving towards creating a milk board?
I read recently that an association was set up to defend the interests of dairy producers vis-à-vis processors and distributors which are highly concentrated in Europe. It is called the European Milk Board, and includes 100,000 dairy producers and 19 unions in 14 countries.
Where do they draw their inspiration from? From here. On the one hand, you talk about protecting supply management, and on the other hand, the European Union wants it to be negotiable. How can you explain what appears to be a double standard?
:
That doesn't come off my time, by the way.
The Chair: No, no.
Go ahead. You have five minutes, Mr. Shipley.
Mr. Bev Shipley: Thank you to the witnesses for coming out.
Mr. Verheul, I have to tell you, it's great to see you again. I did business with your father, and your mother was part of that business for many years, and I have to tell you that I think your integrity comes in the genes, in the DNA. Thank you for the work you have done, not only on this one--this is to both of you--but certainly also on previous agreements.
That's why I think Canada is moving ahead: we've had good agreements. We are a trading nation and an exporting nation, and these are so significant to it. Part of it is that since I was in supply management, the confidence has always been there, not only with the direction of this government but certainly with our negotiators in taking a positive position on that and recognizing the amount in subsidies that are in the other countries we're negotiating with.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the biotechnology challenges that were mentioned. It is an incredible opportunity for Canadians and Canadian farmers. You also talked about the regulatory cooperation. I'm surprised that this has just come in at this time. I'm always wondering what we can think about ahead of time to prevent something from being a big problem and ending up as a challenge.
I had a motion that went through Parliament talking about how we can work with other countries, maybe the United States, maybe Australia, but certainly Europe. We're getting the regulatory process and the licensing, but whether it's for pesticides or animal health or medications, is this something that would fall within that regulatory cooperation, so that you could work ahead to help smooth the trail so that we aren't actually on separate pages? Now the globe is such a small place that we can actually work through it so our farmers aren't disadvantaged because somebody else has the upper hand in getting something licensed ahead of our country. Maybe we don't have the population to get it done, but is that something that would fall under the regulatory cooperation?
I thank the trade negotiators for coming here today.
My question is for you, Steve.
You've been doing this job quite a while in representing Canada. I don't know if it's been 10 or 15 years, but as long as I've been around, you've been doing negotiations for us. You have participated in many trade deals or negotiations around the world, in different areas and places. When we look at Canada, it seems that all political parties are for supply management; farm groups are, and even consumers are quite favourable toward supply management.
We realize that you and your group get marching orders from our trade and agriculture ministers to protect our supply management. What we see are the negotiations taking place.
I'm asking you, what's your sense when you're not at the table, when you're having a coffee with your colleagues or lunch, whether it's in Geneva or wherever it is? What are they saying? Are they jealous of us? Are they angry with us? Are they interested in our model? Or are some of the emerging economies and African countries who are worried about food security thinking, “You know what? These Canadians might have it all right: is there a way we can have their system?”
I say this because I think the more allies we have or the more people who are thinking about using our system, the better the chance we're going to have to protect it. But if we're always standing there alone with this system that people don't understand....
So what is your sense, beyond the table, when you talk with and repeatedly see your colleagues? Maybe you're the most senior guy up there now, so they're asking you the questions. But tell us what it's like away from the table, when you're talking to all these other countries or representatives.
I just want to maybe look a little more broadly here at things. I've only been to Europe a couple of times, but I was there this summer, travelling. My son was there for a hockey tournament. We travelled around to various countries. So I spent a lot of time on a bus with his hockey team and saw a lot of the countryside in various countries in Europe.
There was one thing that I noticed, and I think it was something that I was probably fairly aware of already, and you can maybe confirm this for me—you probably would have a better idea. There's often a lot more of the smaller farms, I guess we'll call them, in Europe, more mixed operations. There's the standard few milk cows, and a couple of chickens, a small acreage, and a variety, whereas in Canada, generally our farmers are often more “specialized”, I suppose, for lack of a better way of putting it. In other words, you might be a beef farmer, you might be a grain farmer: often our farmers are more specialized.
I guess I'm just curious, when we're talking about agricultural trade with our European Union partners, given the fact that our agriculture is done somewhat differently from the way they do it there, what types of opportunities are created for our farmers and what kinds of challenges.