Mr. Rupert Schlegelmilch:

I am more than happy to provide some more information on how this agreement came about, how we deal with it and where it sits in overall trade policy. We usually refer to CETA as the cutting edge of our trade policy because it has not only classical issues like removing tariffs, which are still important because tariffs work like a tax, but it has a host of issues. I mentioned the arcane business of the qualifications of architects as an example of where we are trying are trying to make life easier for smaller businesses. Under CETA, we have a regulatory co-operation forum. It is a dedicated forum where we consider issues such as consumer product safety and what we can do to work better together on that. We worked on cosmetics testing requirements. For a small cosmetic producer the testing costs can be prohibitive in other markets. We consider drug products, including sunscreens and such products right down to toothpaste, to address the technical area of trade. We also work on small and medium enterprise sector issues. We have dedicated meetings on small and medium enterprises because we know smaller companies cannot invest like big companies to survey foreign markets. If they make an investment somewhere else they have to be sure it works. We work on issues such as clean tech climate change. We just had a workshop on clean tech opportunities in both Canada and the EU in order to get companies acquainted with a regulatory environment and to smooth the path for them. I have not mentioned the issues of gender, trade and sustainable development where we are trying to be as forward looking as we can to make sure trade works towards our overall policy goals, which are prosperity, the green transition and the digital transition.

For us, CETA is greatly important because it shows what two likeminded partners can do to make modern trade rules, which address many issues such as sustainability, gender and consumer protection to give globalisation a human face which is people-centred. This is why CETA is important. We have been trying, with some success, to showcase CETA in our other relations and many of the ideas we developed in CETA are now part of a negotiating agenda with other countries.

On the Deputy's question on how we dealt with state stakeholders, he already referred to it; we had a civil society process during the negotiations. We have weekly meetings with the member states on trade with the Council. We had a great number of civil society meetings and consultations. The whole reform of the investment court system was done in a consultation where we had 140,000 contributions from citizens across the board in order to get it right and to address the issues on investment on the investor to state dispute settlement. We continue to involve the stakeholders.

I mentioned the regulatory co-operation forum where business organisations from both sides can work on these issues. We have an advisory group on trade and sustainable development, which meets at the top end of the committee and it meets the domestic advisory group. They talk to each other directly. This is part of a trade and sustainable development chapter where unions, NGOs, and others have a seat at the table to discuss how CETA is implemented. We will continue that engagement. This agreement has to live not by the Commission bureaucrats doing their job but by citizens, businesses, NGOs and unions working together to see how we can make globalisation work for all of us. That is the intention of CETA, namely, to be modern and forward looking.

We have had discussions in other parliaments. I participated in meetings in Berlin. I have been to the Netherlands and to other parts of the Commission. Commissioners have been speaking in France and elsewhere. The debate is very alive. We do not shy away from this debate because we think we have a good agreement to defend. It is true we have to answer these questions. There are people who need to be convinced we are doing our best. In a number of member state parliaments we have had invitations to do exactly what we are doing here, namely, informing members what we think this agreement is.