MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TRADE POLICY COMMITTEE
ON THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP NEGOTIATIONS
THURSDAY, JUNE 21th, 2012, 3 PM EDT –
VIA TELECONFERENCE
REGISTERED PARTICIPANTS (50)
First Name
Surname
Company
John
Burns
ABS Friction Inc.
David
Fung
Lucie
Boily
ACDEG Group
Aerospace Industries Association of
Canada
Peter
Martin
AFI International
Elie
Betito
Apotex Inc.
Henry
Wegiel
ArcelorMittal Dofasco
Pierre
Pyun
Bombardier
Catherine
Scully
Bombardier
Molly
Puglisi
Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Mexico
Robert
Godfrey
Canadian Fertilizer Institute
Judy
Arbour
Jody
Cox
Canadian Foundry Association
Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical
Association
Jean-Michel
Laurin
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
Birgit
Matthiesen
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
Craig
Williams
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
Suzanne
Sabourin
Canadian Meat Council
Bob
Bleaney
CAPP
Steve
Morrissey
Cement Association of Canada
James
Richardson
CGA-Canada
Susan
Kallsen
CME
Jeff
Sholdice
CME
Richard
Zuckerman
Doubletex
Rashpal
Brar-Grewal
E.I. Du Pont Canada Company
Brisette
Lucas
Electro-Federation Canada
Jason
Kee
ESAC
Carla
Ventin
FCPC
Blake
Smith
Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd.
Jon
Flemming
FPAC
Jon
Flemming
FPAC
Ross
Hornby
GE Canada
Heather
Innes
General Motors Of Canada
1
Jason
Easton
General Motors of Canada Ltd
Larry
Martin
George Morris Centre
gord
garner
GPA on behalf of Kraft Canada
Alison
Winsor
Halifax Port Authority
Paul
Brown
INVISTA (Canada) Company
Ves
Sobot
IPEX Management Inc
Barry
Sutton
Maple Leaf Foods
Brendan
Marshall
Mining Association of Canada
Steven
Hogue
Pfizer Canada
Richard
Bertrand
Pratt & Whitney Canada
Ron
Morrison
RC Management
Terry
Plummer
RMS - Ross Corporation
Rocco
Delvecchio
Siemens Canada Limited
Bob
Blackburn
SNC-Lavalin International
Howard
Mains
Tactix Public Affairs
Kathleen
Black
The Coca-Cola Company
Christian
Dube
Trillium Medical Technology Association
Adam
McEniry
Vale
Dave
Johns
Winpak Ltd.
SPEAKERS/GUESTS (2)
Linda
Menghetti
Emergency Committee for American Trade
US Business Coalition for TPP
Jayson
Myers
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
1) Introduction
Jayson Myers, President & CEO of CME opened the call, welcomed participants and made the
following comments:




This week’s announcement that Canada and Mexico are now part of TPP is great news for
several reasons:
 The TPP might very well set the standard for how international trade agreements will be
negotiated in the future;
 Can’t run the risk of lessening the benefits of NAFTA now that the US and Mexico are
engaged in this major trade initiative;
 Canada being at the table will ensure the interests of manufacturers with integrated
cross-border supply chains are taken into account, and will ultimately benefit from what
might become the main vehicle for further trade liberalization in the Asia-Pacific region;
and
 TPP an opportunity to go beyond our NAFTA commitments with the US and Mexico.
Thanks to CME members and association partners in Canada, the US and Mexico for their
direct efforts making the case for Canada’s inclusion and the building of a stronger North
American economy, and for supporting CME’s efforts.
CME also expressed its thanks and congratulations to PM Harper, Minister Fast, and officials
who’ve helped secure a seat for Canada.
Now our real work begins. It’s now up to us to make sure Canada walks the talk when it
comes to its level of ambition in TPP.
2

We’re pleased to have Linda Menghetti from ECAT on the call - ECAT has been acting as the
Secretariat for the US Business Coalition for TPP. We can’t think of someone better than
Linda to bring everyone here up to speed on the status of the negotiations and what US
businesses have been trying to accomplish through TPP.
2) Status of Canada’s inclusion in TPP
Jean Michel Laurin, Vice President, Global Business Policy for CME briefed participants on the
status of Canada’s inclusion in TPP and made the following comments:







Tuesday it was announced that all the partners in TPP support Canada joining the
negotiations so we now have an invitation to join TPP.
Each country now has to follow its own domestic process before it can enter into negotiations
with Canada. In most countries this is not an issue – for example Australia and New Zealand
just need to notify their Parliament.
In the US, the Administration follows the practice (set under fast track even through US
Admin doesn’t have fast track authority) of providing a 90-day notification to US Congress.
Congress has 3 months to consider and then give a yes or no answer – Congress could ask
that limits or restrictions be imposed, so our advocacy efforts in the US aren’t over and must
now focus on Congress.
Now the question that’s on everyone’s mind is: under what conditions were Canada and
Mexico asked to join TPP? We know that Tuesday’s announcement happened as a result of
intense negotiations in the preceding days.
Canada and Mexico were made an offer that Mexico accepted – Canada renegotiated the
language. Two issues have been reported – one is agreeing to what was already agreed by
the nine countries – the other more contentious issue concerns whether Canada can veto
commitments made in the coming months before it has seat at the table.
One of the concerns the current nine parties had expressed is they don’t want new entrants
to delay negotiations. They wanted assurances that new entrants were fine with their
approach in dealing with key negotiating chapters. Also that they were fine with the existing
list of chapters. The only chapter that has been closed so far is the non-controversial SME
chapter so a lot of the work remains to be done.
We understand PMO, Minister Fast’s office and top trade negotiators know these conditions
and are having discussions on this issue. They won’t share much information at this point –
this is politically sensitive and I believe they also need to coordinate with the US on
messaging. We’ll communicate those details to CME members as soon as possible.
3) Status of TPP negotiations and key issues for US Business Coalition for TPP
Linda Menghetti, Vice President at the Emergency Committee for American Trade briefed
participants on the status of the TPP negotiations ahead of the upcoming 13th round of the
negotiations, and the priority issues for the US business community. She made the following
comments:
On process:
 Earlier this year the US Trade Representative said he wanted the negotiations to conclude by
December 2012. US business supports the rapid conclusion of negotiations as they don’t
want TPP to become the next Doha or FTAA.
 US business is very welcoming of Canada and Mexico as it will help achieve more ambitious
results.
 The next rounds of negotiations are scheduled for July 2-10 in San Diego and in September
(timing and location TBC). Canada and Mexico won’t be at there at least for July.
 The 13th round in San Diego will focus on closing more negotiating chapters. The SME
chapter is the only one currently closed. Less controversial chapters will be dealt with in San
Diego. The US might want to wait before dealing with more contentious ones such as the
SPS (Sanitary and phytosanitary standards) chapter since having Canada on board
defending a similar position would help strengthen the US position.
3

TPP is called a 21st century agreement because it seeks to address a wider range of trade
barriers than traditional FTAs. It is a huge priority for the US business community seeking
more market liberalization as it is the only active US trade negotiation.
Negotiating priorities for US business
 A comprehensive agreement on market access and core rules. No major products/rules
should be left off the table. USTR does not want to reopen market access with the four (now
six with Canada and Mexico) countries with whom it already has an FTA. For example, the
US doesn’t want to open its sugar market to Australia (this was left out of their bilateral FTA).
TPP therefore currently has a multilateral and bilateral tariff schedules on market access. US
business has a different view and would like to have those agreements expanded to areas
where the US has sensitivities.
 On trade facilitation, the KORUS (Korea-US Free Trade Agreement) is a model that TPP
seeks to improve on.
 On supply chain, the objective is to have metrics in place to measure progress made so that
products can move more quickly and efficiently, that standards can be met more easily, etc.
 On regulatory cooperation, some areas such as wine and medical devices will have specific
annexes at the end of the agreement, but at the moment little is being done on regulatory
coherence. The goal here is to have all countries adopt a transparent regulatory process
where stakeholders can participate in the regulatory policymaking process.
 On intellectual property protection, this is an area of high importance and interest to the
technology, scientific, food, industrial goods, content and videogame industries. The US is in
a difficult position as it is asking for a strong IP chapter. KORUS is the model the US would
like to replicate in TPP. The TPP Coalition is very active on this front. Some TPP countries
don’t share the same view on copyright protection and data protection for pharmaceutical
products. This chapter is the one with the most unresolved issues, and there are many
questions concerning Canada’s approach on these issues, especially on copyright.
 On investment, the TPP uses a negative list approach that allows countries to take specific
exceptions. Trade deals negotiated since NAFTA have tended to favour governments more
than NAFTA’s Chapter 11 does. The US is pursuing Investor-State in TPP but it is a
contentious issue with some TPP members.
 On procurement, the TPP Coalition is seeking the same outcome as the US-Australia FTA.
 On Rules-of-Origin, the TPP Coalition is promoting rules that will simplify compliance.
 Finally all partners in TPP want this to be a living agreement – it will not be able to deal with
all issues on regulatory coherence and supply chain, so will have to be revisited and
improved as time passes.
Questions and Answers
Q: Since the US Administration does not have fast track authority, is there a chance that when
TPP goes to Congress for approval it might want to reopen the agreement, especially if it deals
with sensitive issues such as agricultural subsidies?
A: US business is hoping the Administration will have Trade Promotion Authority after the 2013
election. The last time it was granted, it was difficult for US business to say why it mattered – this
wouldn’t be the case now with TPP being finalized.
Q: Would Canada be allowed to be an observer in the coming negotiating rounds?
A: There have never been observers in TPP. There is no observer status but Canada and Mexico
are currently in a unique position so a precedent could be set.
Q: Does TPP deal with the movement of business people?
A: Most countries in TPP want to put this issue on the table except the US – the US Judiciary
Commission does not want immigration issues on the table. US business strongly supports
dealing with the movement of people but this won’t get traction before the November election.
Q: Was Japan invited? Did they simply not accept the conditions set for new entrants?
A: The word is that Japan didn’t officially request to join TPP. The reality is that Japan has to deal
with a range of domestic issues and would have to do more than anyone else to open up their
4
markets. These are tough issues to deal with domestically. Some in the US like auto industry said
didn’t want to have Japan in. ECAT wants to see them in only if they put everything on the table.
Q: Which conditions did Canada have to accept to join TPP?
A: We heard from USTR that conditions for new entrants are that they don’t slow down the
negotiations, and don’t ask to reopen issues that had already been dealt with.
Q: What is being pursued on IP for pharmaceuticals and where do things stand?
A: A starting point for the US is the language in the IP chapter of KORUS. On the USTR website
they also have a paper on IP for pharmaceuticals that provides more information. Some of the
issues include data protection for biologics. What US business expects is that IP protection
applies to other countries – in many countries they have good IP rules but weak data protection
or marketing approval rules.
Q: We heard that is in the cases where two TPP members also have a bilateral FTA, the two
countries would be free to decide whether to apply TPP or the bilateral agreement (e.g. NAFTA).
Is this true?
A: This is an ongoing issue. US business wants to see the more liberalizing agreement take
precedence. This issue won’t be resolved until everything is finalized.
Q: How can the US pursue its objectives to open access to dairy in Canada if they are not willing
to provide expanded market access in their own sensitive areas? Are those who stand to lose
louder than those who stand to win? What kind of political impetus is there behind TPP?
A: There is broad support from the US Business community. Having Canada and Mexico at the
table will help enhance that. Some sectors won’t be interested before Japan’s invited to join the
negotiations. Some sectors and labour unions are strongly opposed to TPP
Q: Will antidumping rules be included in TPP?
A: The US never included antidumping in any of its FTAs outside of the WTO, except for NAFTA
Chapter 11. Dispute settlement has been discussed but again KORUS should be seen as the
basis of what the US is pursuing. One objective is to ensure that State-Owned Entreprises don’t
distort the market – there are still many questions about what this actually means.
4) Closing remarks
Jean Michel Laurin thanked Linda Menghetti for her remarks, and all participants for joining the
call.
He mentioned that with this call today CME is starting to turn its attention to defining a common
agenda for Canadian businesses and ensuring we can hit the ground running once Canada
formally has a seat at the negotiating table. CME looks forward to continuing to work with
members to ensure Canada’s participation in TPP delivers tangible benefits to Canadian
manufacturers and exporters.
CME’s work in the coming weeks and months will focus on advocating for Canada’s inclusion with
US Congress, defining a common agenda and set of common negotiating objectives for
Canadian business, and coordinating our approach with government.
5) Adjournment
There being no further items of discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 pm EDT.
5