Delegation for Relations with Canada - The Chair - Mr Elmar BROK Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy European Parliament Rue Wiertz B-1047 BRUSSELS Subject: 27th interparliamentary meeting between the European Parliament and Canada (Ottawa 29-31 October 2003) Dear Mr Chairman Please find enclosed the report on the 27th EP/Canada interparliamentary meeting which was held in Ottawa on 29-31 October 2003. On this mission, the Delegation also visited Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, in order to gain a better understanding of developments in Canada. This meeting took place in a warm, open and cordial atmosphere and confirmed the friendship and the desire for co-operation which exist between the European Union and Canada. I shall be happy to provide you with any further information you may require. Yours sincerely Willy De Clercq FdR 514448 PE 337.484 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DELEGATION FOR RELATIONS WITH CANADA 27th EP/Canada interparliamentary meeting Ottawa, 29-31 October 2003 Report from the Chairman, Mr Willy De Clercq I. INTRODUCTION The 27th Interparliamentary meeting between delegations from the European Parliament and the Canadian Parliament took place on 29-31 October 2003 in Ottawa. The previous exchange took place in October 2002 in Brussels (see report PE 326.708). The European Parliament delegation also used the opportunity to visit Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. The visit was characterised by the wide breadth of topics discussed. Immigration and immigrant integration policies, sustainable development and fight against climate change, as well as security issues formed the backbone of the bilateral agenda and the basis of a constructive dialogue. The ways and means for reinforcing the EU-Canada relationship were also widely discussed. The Chairmen of the two Delegations released, at the end of the meeting, a joint statement (attached) and took part in a joint press meeting. II. EU-CANADA RELATIONS Dialogue between the European Union and Canada has been stepped up in recent years on the basis of the 1996 Joint Political Declaration and Action Plan; co-operation has expanded, covering a wide area, spanning from security issues to economic, cultural and scientific co- operation. At the December 2002 EU/Canada Summit in Ottawa it was remarked, however, that this sound and balanced relationship, based on the extensive and growing convergence on global issues, was not fulfilling its potentialities, and should undergo a comprehensive review; in particular, it was considered that a new "forward-looking, action-oriented trade and investment agreement" should be designed. This comprehensive review was scheduled to take place at the December 2003 EU/Canada Summit. The parliamentary dialogue between the two delegations took place in this specific context, following in particular the remarks contained in the 29 September 2003 Council conclusions, which stressed the importance of parliamentary input into the review process. III. IST WORKING SESSION, OTTAWA, 30 OCTOBER, 9.00 - 12.30 Fisheries Mr Tom Wappel, MP Mr Bill Matthews, MP Mr Charles Hubbard, MP The Canadian side referred to the particular geographic situation of their country, surrounded by three oceans and comprising enormous expanses of freshwater. The fisheries sector was FdR 514448 2 PE 337.484 confronted with the consequences of the 1992 moratorium on cod, the inefficiency of the NAFO enforcement mechanisms and the changes in the echo-balance between species (including the arrival of invasive species and the explosion of the seal population). The termination of cod fisheries had meant the disappearance of a way of life, and caused the migration of entire populations. The European side stressed that the principles underpinning the new EU fisheries policy were very similar to the inspiration of the Canadian policy. It was clear, however, that over-fishing had already occurred, and that over-capacities were still in place; from 2005, however, no more EU funds would be available for investing in ships. Sustainability would therefore have to be the main criterion of the EU's policy choices. "The meshes of the control nets would become tighter", and a "compliance scoreboard" for Member States had been introduced; however, the most difficult challenge was in finding viable alternatives for coastal regions. E-governance Mr Reg Alcock, MP The Canadian side remarked that, while the subject of e-governance did raise much excitement, practical implementation was difficult. While delivering information was comparatively simple, it was difficult to provide other services online. Canada looked with interest to the European experience, in particular as far as issues linked to the cultural and linguistic heterogeneity of Europe were concerned. E-governance could change the way democracies operate, but privacy problems were still not solved, and legislators should cooperate in tackling those issues. The European side described efforts for "putting Europe online", and in particular their impact on transparency of the democratic process. New networks were also developing, based on broadband access, which would enable digital TV broadcasts and a much wider variety of services being offered. Security and terrorism Mr Derek Lee, MP Mr James Abbott, MP The Canadian side indicated that Europe and Canada shared common approaches to the issues of security, terrorism and civil liberties. In characterising reactions to 9/11, this was contrasted to the US approach, where legislators went "over the top" and were still wrapped up in the aftermath. The Canadian reaction involved • creating the "crime of status" (i.e. Membership of a criminal organisation) • merging counter-intelligence and criminal law enforcement in a new "integrated, multi- agency approach". To a certain extent, Canadian legislators took this opportunity for operating changes in criminal law which were long overdue. The main unresolved problem consisted however in racial and religious profiling or targeting: many had been therefore "inconvenienced or discriminated" on the basis of race or faith. The European side referred to the difficult balance to be maintained between security and presumption of innocence. The EU should exchange experiences with its "friends and partners", and look for a "dialogue between cultures" with the Islamic world. The problems of intelligence sharing, and of access to databases were still unresolved. The US legislation with regard to PNR (Passenger Name Record) and CSI (Container Security Initiative) raised legal problems in the EU. The US tend to consider that weaknesses in security controls are located outside, and both the EU and Canada have to take this perception into account. FdR 514448 3 PE 337.484 IV. 2ND WORKING SESSION, OTTAWA, 30 OCTOBER, 15.00 - 18.00 Ms Marlene Jennings, MP Ms Anna Chiappa, Director Canadian Ethnocultural Council Ms Deborah Spurr, Director Settlement/Integration Branch/Citizenship and Immigration Canada Multiculturalism Policy and Immigrant Integration The debate focussed on the definition of a multicultural society and on the various approaches adopted for immigrant integration. The Europeans stressed that the European Union was, in itself, a multicultural society, which included 11 official languages plus various officially recognised regional or minority languages and cultures. While this subject was, to a wide extent, within the competencies of Members States, a common framework for Immigration, Asylum and Immigrant integration was being worked out in the context of the third EU pillar (Justice and Home Affairs). However, since decisions had to be taken by unanimity, progress in this area was quite slow. Differences between Canada and the EU were so important that comparisons were difficult: • population density in the EU was much higher; furthermore, the ratio of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers to legal immigrants was much higher than in the case of Canada • immigration policies were, to a wide extent, the competence of Member States but freedom of movement within the EU implied a co-ordination of policies and minimum requirements. The Canadian side stressed that, while the EU experienced immigration as a problem, Canada looked at it as an opportunity. Immigrants gave an important contribution to Canada's economy and society and the Government promoted immigration via internet and via embassies and consulates. Since the 70s, Canada had no official culture, and had developed a multicultural, inclusive model. The Canadian policy of multiculturalism meant that the Government promoted ethnic pluralism and cultural diversity of new Canadian citizens.The only condition requested for the new Canadians was to know English or French (or both). Canada had a charter of rights and freedoms protecting the cultural diversity of its citizens.The the main difference between the US and Canada was that the US had a "melting pot" approach to immigration, by which every new citizen must share the "American culture". whereas the Canadian culture "does not exist": there are two official languages but each citizen had the right to enjoy and develop his own culture. Where urban ghettos and problem areas had developed, experiences such as the "Community mobilisation programmes" had helped in reducing tensions. Excessive reliance on social benefits was a problem, but it should be dealt with by offering incentives rather than by cutting assistance. V. 3RD WORKING SESSION, OTTAWA, 31 OCTOBER, 9.00 - 11.30 Environment, sustainable development and Kyoto