Joint report: Committee on trade in goods

May 25, 2023 (by videoconference)

1. Adoption of the agenda and introductions

The EU side presented recent data showing that EU-Canada trade increased significantly. The bilateral two-way trade in goods between EU and Canada increased over 66%, reaching EUR 77 billion, compared to previously EUR 61 billion in 2021, underscoring CETA’s vital role in bilateral trade. Despite the pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine, CETA helped to jointly resist supply chain pressures and bolstered food security and raw materials. Additionally, EU imports from Canada surged by 25% (EUR 6 billion) in 2022 compared to 2021 demonstrating CETA’s overall success. Canada concurred and emphasised that few relationships being as important as the one with the EU, using vaccine imports from the EU during the COVID-19 pandemic as an example.

2. Luxury tax in Canada

The EU side reiterated its concern that the Canadian Luxury tax is de facto discriminatory against European vehicles and boats. The EU asked Canada to review the tax. Furthermore, according to the EU it would be counterproductive in the fight against climate change to subject electric vehicles to such a tax given the fact that electric vehicles are generally more expensive, and their uptake should be encouraged. The EU industry estimates that around 30% of EU manufactured vehicle sales in Canada would be affected every year. The EU requested that the Canadian Revenue Agency share information on what vehicles are subject to the luxury tax to prove that the tax is not discriminatory as Canada claimed.

The Canadian side advised that Canada’s position has not changed: CETA does not prevent introducing a tax that does not discriminate between domestic and foreign goods, and that Canada considers that the luxury tax is not discriminatory.  Canada advised that it does not collect such data, however, Canada would welcome data from EU industry to pass it on to the Department of Finance. Canada also reiterated that the luxury tax was a priority in the political platform of the government. Canada acknowledged that many high end vehicle brands are headquartered in Europe and built in Europe, but reiterated that the tax itself is not discriminatory. Canada recalled that this topic was already raised serval times and that further discussion should take place at political level. The EU underlined it would share any further data it would receive also at technical level.

3. Technical barriers to trade (TBT) issues

a. Implementation of the CETA Conformity Assessment Protocol

The Canadian side referred to its proposal to move three categories of products (pressure equipment, appliances burning gaseous fuel and personal protective equipment) which are currently in Annex 2 of the CETA Conformity Assessment Protocol to Annex 1 of the Protocol to include them in the operational scope.

Canada asked whether the EU was able to agree adding these new categories. These categories have been identified as being of interest to Canadian stakeholders.

The EU first underlined the need to ensure the Protocol was functioning well and delivering with respect to those products already covered and underlined the importance of joint awareness-raising and information sharing activities.
The EU side mentioned a Webinar that took place in September 2022 with the aim advancing discussions on the extension of the Protocol, promoting a shared understanding of its benefits which is essential for its successful implementation.

Furthermore, the EU had consulted stakeholders to gain insights into the challenges encountered when seeking to comprehend Canada's technical requirements during the accreditation process for the sectors for which the Protocol is already operational. They urged Canada to provide as much clarity and help as possible to European stakeholders to understand the Canadian system to enable the successful implementation of the Protocol.

The Canadian side responded that there was a need for a better understanding how the unique arrangement between Canada and Europe can be properly leveraged to benefit firms particularly small and medium sized companies who may find dealing with regulatory processes challenging due to capacity constraints. Canada acknowledged that European stakeholders may not be as interested as Canadian ones; however, adding more categories offers an opportunity to engage more around the Protocol and to better understand its advantages.

Canada was likewise very pleased to participate in previous promotional activities and information sessions. The Canadian side believed it would be advantageous to add new categories to Annex 1 of the Protocol because that could send a signal to industry stakeholders that this is something that would be in their advantage. Canada also asked whether the EU had a timeline on when this could be advanced for the three product categories.

The EU side responded that it had no specific timetable and stressed that an inventory of current categories and those proposed to be included was needed to see if the system could work better and to find the reasons why it was not working well enough for European companies before new categories could be added.

Global Affairs Canada offered to respond directly to questions, along with the collaboration of the Standards Council of Canada (Canada’s national accreditation body), as well as to engage directly with any interested stakeholders. Canada was forthcoming in addressing the apparent complexity of the Canadian system given that some areas are regulated at the level of Canadian provinces and a lot of work had been done with the provinces to pave the way for European products certified to Canadian standards.

The EU responded that stakeholders would like to have public guidance up front. It would be useful if this could be centralised at Canadian state level and to have a one-stop-shop for accreditors and conformity assessment bodies to address issues. This would be a big investment for organisations especially when they do not have certainty on the return on investment. Canada offered to engage directly with any EU conformity assessment body or accreditation body that had questions about Canada’s conformity assessment system pursuant to the Protocol.

In addition, Canada underlined that adding artificial intelligence (AI) systems to the Protocol was a top priority for Canada and would be a potent symbol of the mutual commitment to supporting cutting-edge technology innovation and investment. The respective AI sectors are composed of small firms for which the fixed cost of conformity assessment will be the same as for large multinational companies. Canada believes there is a mutual interest in ensuring the competitiveness of small AI firms. Canada referred to the possibility contained in Article 39 of the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act which permits third party conformity assessment. Canada was interested in beginning informal discussions now whether the European Commission could agree to adding AI to the Protocol. Canada’s objective would be to ensure that it can amend the protocol and give the conformity assessment bodies enough time to become accredited before the AI Act starts applying.

The EU underlined that it was too early to discuss specifics under the draft AI Act as the legislative procedure was still ongoing.

b. Canadian Law on the Labelling of Beverages

The EU side asked for an update on the Canadian Law on the Labelling of Beverages, more specifically on how Canada plans to proceed with warning statements on beverages containing caffeine on the risks of consuming them with alcohol.

Canada responded that the final supplemented food regulations do not require a cautionary statement that caffeinated drinks should not be mixed with alcohol.

c. EU Artificial Intelligence Act

Canada stressed the common interest on both sides regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) legislation notably regulatory measures to ensure that AI systems do not cause harm and to enable Canadian and EU firms to remain competitive vis-à-vis larger multinational companies. Canada outlined its suggestions for targeted modifications to the EU AI Act: firstly, strengthening the use of international standards. Secondly, an explicit reference in the Act that non-EU micro and small AI companies would have access to AI regulatory sandboxes on the same priority basis as small EU companies. Thirdly, limitations on requests to provide source code as part of the conformity assessment process. Fourthly, requiring the European Standardization Organizations to take into consideration the needs of micro and small firms when developing the standards implementing the extensive record-keeping requirements. The EU stated that artificial intelligence is one of the key elements of technological progress in the coming decades and a key requirement for industrial competitiveness across many sectors.

The EU fully embraces the development and the uptake of AI, through twofold policy actions: investments to promote excellence (hence the Coordinated Plan on AI, the Horizon Europe, and the Digital Europe funding programme) and regulatory framework for trustworthy AI (thus the proposal for the AI Act).

The EU stressed the importance of the human-centric approach and trustworthy AI.

In reply to Canadian concerns, the EU took note of Canada’s points but underlined that the draft AI Act is currently in a particularly sensitive stage of the legislative process and that it was up to the European co-legislators to agree on a text. Hence, it was not appropriate to further discuss the details at this stage, in the Committee Trade in Goods , including the potential Commission position.

On standards, the EU side pointed out that the well-established Frankfurt and Vienna agreements provide for international cooperation between European and international standardisation organisations and is one of the fundamental principles on which the work of the European Standardisation Organisation builds and ongoing work fully reflects the importance of international standardisation and fully addresses Canada’s concerns. The Commission flagged the European Commission Standardisation Request addressed to the European Standardisation Organisations which was adopted on 22 May 2023 and ongoing work in the CEN/CENELEC Joint Technical Committee 21 and the work of the ISO/IEC SC42.

The EU stated that it stands ready to work with international partners, including through bilateral and multilateral fora, to promote trustworthy AI.

d. EU Cyber Resilience Act

Canada raised the EU’s proposal of Cyber Resilience Act, notably the importance of having a reference to international standards in the Act. Furthermore, it underlined that the possibility to conclude Mutual Recognition Agreement for conformity assessment with third countries should be directly mentioned in the operative provisions of the Act and not only in the recital. Canada also enquired about the EU response to Canada’s comments submitted to the WTO notification.

The EU underlined that this was a European Commission proposal and would now go through the legislative process but provided some explanations on the proposal. The implementation of the cybersecurity requirements will be facilitated by standards (so-called "harmonised standards"), taking into account existing international and European standards. Upon request of the European Commission, such standards will be developed by the European Standardisation Organisations, which have to consider existing international standards, in line with the EU Standardisation Regulation. The preparatory work has already started. Furthermore, the EU clarified that as indicated in recital 67 of the proposed Regulation, there is the possibility for the EU to conclude bilateral (inter-governmental) agreements for the mutual recognition of conformity assessment with third countries and clarified that this did not require an operative provision. Finally, as regards the WTO notification, the EU confirmed that the response to the comments submitted by Canada is being finalised.

e. EU Common Criteria Cybersecurity Requirements

Canada asked the EU about the status of the EU Common Criteria Cybersecurity Certification Scheme (EUCC scheme) and the scheme’s future operation and governance.

The EU responded that this covered two layers: firstly, the adoption of the Common Criteria and the Common Evaluation Methodology standards which will fully align the scheme with the foundations of the international Common Criteria community as convened under the Common Criteria Recognition Agreement (CCRA) of which Canada is a member. Secondly, the EUCC scheme’s governance obligations build on the practices established by the international and European Common Criteria community but with some improvements.

Canada asked when the discussion with the Member States would fully begin and when it would be notified to the WTO TBT committee.

The EU side said that it was in the mutual interest of the EU and Canada to preserve, for now, the current agreement on mutual recognition between the Canadian Scheme and the EU including those EU Member States that have been members of the CCRA. Currently it was consulting internally in order to finalise the Commission’s draft EUCC Implementing Regulation.

Once finalised, a 60-days notification period to the WTO will start, followed by discussions with the EU Member States in order to adopt the EUCC Implementing Regulation.

Once the EUCC Implementing Regulation enters into force, the EU Member States may mandate the Commission to conclude a Mutual Recognition Agreement with Canada and any other non-EU CCRA member.

As regards the timeline for adoption of the EUCC Implementing Regulation, the EU side said that adoption was tentatively foreseen for autumn/winter 2023.

f. EU’s Renewable Energy Directive

The Canadian side recognised the role that the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED) plays in contributing to environmental objectives. Closely demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria of the RED is a particular interest to the Canadian wood pellet industry which is actively engaged in exporting sustainably produced pellets to Europe.

The Canadian side requested information regarding the process and timeline for publication and approval of the provisional RED text and what the timeline was for the amendment to take effect and be implemented by Member States.

The EU side explained that an agreement was reached between the European Parliament and the Council on 29 March 2023. The legal revision process will follow with the entry into force foreseen for autumn 2023 and with transposition to take place by early 2025.

4. EU regulation on deforestation-free products

The Canadian side acknowledged the EU’s availability to discuss and explain the Deforestation Regulation and referred to recent technical meetings. It underlined the high level of concern among agricultural and forest products’ stakeholders. Canada claimed that the EU Deforestation Regulation would result in barriers to trade for Canadian exports even though products originating in Canada are at very low risk of deforestation. Canada also claimed that the requirement for geolocation information to identify a very specific four-hectare polygon, the plot of land where the product came from, was unworkable for many Canadian products given the way they are produced. Canada will continue to raise its concerns.

The EU side said it remained open to continue the dialogue with Canada on this matter, underlining that many exchanges had already taken place and others were already scheduled in the near future.

Canada expressed appreciation for the Commission’s efforts to update interested parties regularly but claimed that the Regulation was discriminatory against non-EU producers. The EU rejected this claim and stressed the non-discriminatory nature of the Regulation. Canada acknowledged that the Commission had indicated that this regulation applied equally to domestic and foreign producers. However, Canada said that in its view it will be more difficult to implement for foreign producers.

It was agreed that Canada would provide further specific questions in writing as a follow up. The EU side pointed to a list of frequently asked questions which were collected after the last platform meeting, and which will be published in the near future and would possibly address some of the Canadian questions.

5. EU green deal industrial plan and the budget 2023 Made-in-Canada plan – Growing a green economy

The EU side said that the Canadian federal budget for 2023, showed that Canada and the EU were closely aligned with many of the objectives for the green transition and tackling climate change, but the EU underlined some concerns. The focus of its concern is to avoid discriminatory local content requirements, notably in relation to incentives and procurement.

The EU side asked about Canada’s intention to launch public consultations on the possibility of introducing a new reciprocity treatment for the measures of the government’s plan to build a clean economy, and whether Canada could confirm that the implementation of this budget would not be subject to discriminatory local content requirements.

The Canadian side responded that when it designs these measures, it always considers international trade obligations, including WTO rules. The approach is to not discriminate, to be reciprocal, and to seek to minimise direct distortions by favouring incentives that are more market-based, i.e., investment tax credits and carbon pricing over subsidies that directly encourage production. Canada added that its slate of measures do not include local content requirements, and sought assurance from the EU that it practised the same approaches. Canada explained that the measures were developed in light of the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and notably the discriminatory local content conditions in the IRA. The Canadian side asked about the EU Industrial Plan for the Green Deal and notably the Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA), and whether there was already a sense of critical steps and timelines, or information about new flexibilities regarding state aid and how these will be implemented, tracked, and monitored, especially considering some recent media reports about initiatives at Member State level that appear to include local content requirements in the area of electric vehicles.

The EU side stressed that European incentives are aimed at creating favourable conditions for capital investment. The EU side asked if there was a plan to pursue a course similar to the EU as regards production specific incentives in response to specific incentives that are available in the United States. Canada reiterated that it could not outspend the US in a subsidy race, and therefore the approach is much more targeted, and the incentives take a different approach, and they are not necessarily targeted at production. The EU proposed a follow up bilateral discussion on trade related issues related to the net zero transition. Canada agreed that such a dedicated discussion with key experts on both sides would be beneficial.

The EU side updated Canada on the envisaged timeline of the NZIA, and that it aimed for an agreement between the co-legislators before the European Parliament elections next year. Regarding the Critical Raw Materials Act, the expectations are that it would be completed by the end of this year with entry into force in 2024.

6. Update on the EU's CBAM and update on the Canadian approach to tackling the carbon cross-border leakage problem

The Canadian side asked for an update of the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) Regulation and about a technical observers’ meeting planned for June 2023.

The EU side confirmed that CBAM has officially entered into force on 17 May 2023 and will enter into application on 1 October 2023, it is now a binding legislation, and it will be notified to the WTO.

The implementation of the CBAM will be gradual, with a nearly three-year transition period starting from October 2023 - in which no financial adjustment will be paid. This is a pilot phase to give maximum predictability to investors and businesses in the EU and outside. During this transition period the EU will continue to work together with industry and our partner countries to increase the mutual understanding of the instrument, to ensure the smooth implementation of the mechanism, to find synergies wherever possible, and to promote effective methods of decarbonisation globally. This will feed into an evaluation of the application of the regulation by mid-2025, which will define the final methodology to be used when CBAM goes live on 1 January 2026.

Canada is being consulted in the informal expert group. The Commission is preparing the draft implementing regulation and intends to publish it for comments in the summer of 2023. There will also be a discussion in the informal expert group that the transitional period should be a time when the EU continues the discussion with its trading partners and refines its approach to reporting and calculating embedded emissions. The EU foresees the possibility of a minor review of the Regulation before it takes effect.
The EU side confirmed that the revision may touch upon the product scope and the emission scope, all listed in Article 30 of the Regulation.

The Canadian side also asked about the timeline on Third Country Agreements. The EU responded that so far, agreements with third countries on the recognition of the CO2 price have not been necessary, since the CBAM regulation provides that the CO2 prices paid in the countries of origin are taken into account. The EU will start collecting information on these carbon prices early next year.

Furthermore, Canada referred to industry comments in the aluminium sector regarding the treatment of scrap for the purpose of emission accounting and asked about more specific and precise information of the transition. Regarding refining the approach for embedded emission, the Canadian side stressed that this will be amongst those issues that will be given further consideration to figure out how to make the accounting work. The EU side clarified that regarding the refining of the approach, the question of scrap is essentially the question to which part of the production to attribute the emissions and at what time of the life cycle of the product.

Canada will continue to follow with great interest how the EU is progressing and hopes that from a financial perspective and from an import policy perspective Canada can learn a lot from the European experience, given that the EU and Canada are trailblazers.

7. Reports from committees

a. Report of the Agriculture Committee Meeting and follow-up (6 October 2022)

The Canadian side reported on the Agricultural Committee Meeting that took place on 6 October 2022 during which both Parties highlighted positive outcomes with increasing trade since CETA has entered into provisional application. The Parties also considered that good cooperation between both sides had resulted in a legally solid solution for Canadian exporters of hops, with the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/700.

Canada reiterated its concerns that the EU Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) administration system for CETA beef and pork TRQs fails to meet the CETA obligation to provide a mechanism whereby import licenses can be issued automatically on demand. Canada noted that this issue would become increasingly problematic as Canada increases its capacity to export to the EU market. The EU maintained its position that the existing system is in compliance with CETA requirements and recalled how the quota allocations are administered.

Canada continued to seek assurances from the EU that the apportionment of its WTO beef and pork TRQs will not negatively affect the EU’s market access commitments under CETA. The EU referred to the negotiations on the EU’s apportionment of its WTO TRQs and urged Canada to adopt what the EU believes is a pragmatic approach.

Canada reiterated its concern about the trade implications of the EU’s regulatory approach to assessing pesticides and contaminants and subsequent impacts for setting import tolerances. Canada emphasised the importance of appropriate transition periods when changes are made to allow for sufficient time to adapt to new requirements. Canada renewed its concerns regarding emergency authorisations by Member States for previously banned pesticides which place imports at a disadvantage vis-a-vis EU products. On the implementation of the EU’s Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulation, Canada urged the EU again to provide a sufficient transition period to allow Canada to implement, adapt and comply with the changes. The EU referred to substantial discussions on those issues in the CETA Joint Management Committee for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.

The Canadian side said that the Deforestation regulation on commodities associated with deforestation could be harmful to trade, and that Canada is particularly concerned that due diligence requirements will be difficult or costly to meet. The EU pointed out that the regulation differentiates between high-risk, standard-risk and low-risk countries, which will enjoy simplified requirements.

The EU side reiterated its concerns about the administration of the Canadian cheese Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs), particularly the volume of transfers (with alleged associated transaction costs), expressed disappointment that the Comprehensive Review has not yet been finalised, recalled its submissions in that context and asked when Canada would complete the Review. Canada stressed that allocation transfers were longstanding practice in Canada’s TRQ administration that it aimed to finalise the Comprehensive Review as soon as possible and committed to share updates on the process in due course. Canada reiterated that all the feedback received from stakeholders throughout the consultations is being considered and would help inform decisions on long term policies.

The EU reiterated its concern with the agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom allowing the UK continued access to the EU reserve of Canada’s WTO cheese TRQ. The EU sought assurance from Canada that the EU’s access to the Canadian cheese market will not be reduced as a result of the UK’s continued access to the EU-reserve. The arrangement to allow the UK access to the EU-reserve is temporary and set to expire on 31 December 2023.

b. Report of the Wines and Spirits Committee Meeting and follow-up (15 March 2023)

The EU reported on the last meeting of the Committee on Wines and Spirits. In 2022, in line with the CETA Declaration on Wines and Spirits, a joint progress review was performed showing all the progress achieved in wines and spirits in the first five years of CETA, as well as the remaining work.

Following up on that constructive achievement, the Committee on Wines and Spirits met on 15 March 2023. The EU raised essentially two points: the update of the wine and spirit annexes and some longstanding provincial barriers to trade.

The EU continued its long-standing discussion on the possible amendment of the annexes to the 2003 Agreement between the European Community and Canada on trade in wines and spirits drinks, incorporated into CETA. The EU side hoped that an agreement will be reached on a first update of the annexes this year, notably regarding lists of geographical indications and oenological practices. With that first update, the EU wants to pave the way for further updates of the wine and spirit annexes in the future. This would show that CETA adapts to market developments.

On trade barriers, the EU side reiterated its concerns with a range of measures maintained by the provinces, including small producer rates and direct delivery access and reiterated its call to work toward the full elimination of these discriminatory practices without delay. The EU clearly stated a few priority issues regarding de iure discriminatory measures. The EU urged Canada and its provinces to seize the ongoing policy developments to align the identified measures to CETA commitments and grant national treatment to EU alcoholic beverages.

The Canadian side confirmed that a mandate had been secured to move forward with the negotiation of the update of the 2003 treaty annexes and noted the EU’s concerns regarding provinces’ measures.

c. Report of the Joint Sectoral Group on Pharmaceuticals (15 December 2022)

The Canadian side reported on the outcome of the 5th Joint Sectoral Group on Pharmaceuticals of 15 December 2022. Regulatory authorities in the EU and Canada continue to reduce duplication of inspections in each other’s territories. The initiative to extend recognition to also include active pharmaceutical ingredients within the scope of the CETA protocol was successful. This recognition will enable the reduction of unnecessary administrative burden for the pharmaceutical sector while maintaining high standards for drug product safety and quality. This also promotes efficiency for the regulators.

Canada also raised the need to advance with an amendment to the CETA protocol on the mutual recognition of the compliance and enforcement program regarding good manufacturing practices for pharmaceutical protocols including include active pharmaceutical ingredients (API).

8. AOB

a. Removing intra-provincial barriers to trade in Canada: Update on the work of the Regulatory Reconciliation and Cooperation Table

The EU side asked for an update on the work on the Canadian Regulatory Reconciliation and Cooperation Tables, in particular on the initiatives aimed at regulatory convergence of rules relating to goods and services, and for a general assessment of the five years of work of the Regulatory Reconciliation and Cooperation Table and the review process that is currently ongoing.

The Canadian side presented the Regulatory Reconciliation and Cooperation Table which was established in 2017 as part of the Canada Free Trade Agreement. It brings the federal government together with representatives of the 13 provincial and territorial governments to identify barriers to trade, to reconcile regulations where there are duplicative or divergent regulations that can be reconciled, where decisions are made by consensus. Subsequently the working group creates a work plan. The Canada FTA also provided for a review after five years, which was completed last year and is currently still an internal document. The parties are working on how to review the identified areas to improve administrative practices and communication with stakeholders. Furthermore, Canada in the 2023 budget, announced the development of a federal mutual recognition framework to outline the federal government's policy approach to working with the provinces and territories.

The EU suggested cross-fertilisation of ideas at the Regulatory Cooperation Forum where there is an opportunity for this to be discussed and pursued and welcomed Canada's willingness to look for synergies.

b. Update on discussions towards a Global Arrangement for Sustainable Steel and Aluminium

Canada inquired about the state of play of the EU-US negotiations for a Global Sustainable Arrangement (GSA) on Steel and Aluminium.

The EU side explained that within the context of the GSA, it was committed to achieving an ambitious outcome in the Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminium negotiations. The EU aims to achieve the permanent lifting of US Section 232 measures on steel and aluminium on EU exports, ensure the long-term viability of our industries, encourage low-carbon intensity steel and aluminium production and trade, and restore market-oriented conditions globally and bilaterally. The EU is pursuing an approach to the GSA in compliance with its international obligations, such as WTO rules. The GSA will be open to all partners demonstrating commitment to countering non-market excess capacity and reducing carbon-intensity in these sectors. Canada thanked the EU for the update and noted that Canada’s concerns are that there may be norms being established in trade in these sectors which could lead to new costs or otherwise not work for the Canadian industry.

c. France’s “eco-bonus” incentives for autos

Canada raised concerns about France’s announcement of an “eco-bonus” incentive for autos produced with renewable energy and sustainable materials, which is being publicly characterised by France as supporting domestic production.  The EU responded with a general explanation of how the Commission overviews Member State aid schemes. Canada noted that it will be watching this issue as it progresses over the coming months.

Next steps

It was agreed to aim for a technical meeting or an informal follow-up meeting in early fall. It would be useful to have an exchange of information between the European and Canadian teams to identify as explicitly as possible the points that could be addressed during such a meeting. Notably the EU said it was looking forward to discussing the trade relevant elements for the net-zero transition.

Furthermore, the EU expressed its intention to schedule the dialogue on intellectual property (IP). Canada responded that the EU’s IP colleagues should reach out first as there seems to be greater interest on EU side.

Additionally, Canada expressed an interest in meeting before the next Joint Committee which is foreseen for the first quarter of 2024.

Canada:

Co-Chair: Executive Director, Tariffs and Goods Market Access Division, Global Affairs Canada
Co-Chair: Director, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance Canada
Health Product Compliance, Health Canada;
Technical Barriers to Trade Division, Global Affairs Canada;
Trade Agreements Secretariat, Global Affairs Canada;
Market Access Secretariat, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada;
Regulatory Cooperation Directorate, Treasury Board Secretariat; and
Mission of Canada to the European Union

EU:

Co-Chair: European Commission, DG TRADE, Deputy Head of Unit D1
European Commission services: DG Trade (DG TRADE); DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW); DG Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI); DG Environment (DG ENV), DG Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD), DG Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE), DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CNECT), DG Justice and Consumers (DG JUST), DG Energy (DG ENER), Delegation of the European Union to Canada