Report

INTRODUCTION

From 10 to 14 April 2017, eight Canadian parliamentarians were in France for the 45^th Annual Meeting of the Canada–France Interparliamentary Association (CFIA). Member of Parliament Denis Paradis led the Canadian delegation, which also comprised Senators Claudette Tardif and Thanh Hai Ngo, and Members of Parliament Ramez Ayoub, Dan Vandal, Jacques Gourde, Alain Rayes and François Choquette. The delegation was accompanied by CFIA Executive Secretary Line Gravel, CFIA Advisor and Library of Parliament of Canada Analyst Raphaëlle Deraspe, and Policy Advisor Marc Berthiaume from the Canadian Embassy in France.

The French delegation was led by National Assembly Member Catherine Coutelle and Senator Claudine Lepage; it also comprised National Assembly members Marie-Noëlle Battistel and Joëlle Huilier, as well as Senator Pierre-Yves Collombat, Senator Louis Duvernois and Senator Claude Kern. The delegation was accompanied by Gabrielle Guerrero and Delphine Bert, the CFIA’s executive secretaries for the National Assembly and the Senate.

The topics for discussion at the annual meeting were:

• immigrant integration; and
• the impact of the Canada–European Union (EU) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) on the agriculture and agri-food sector.

Since the annual meeting took place during the French presidential election campaign, members of the Canadian delegation had the opportunity to attend political events, visit the headquarters of a political party and engage in topical discussions with political analysts.

This report provides a summary of the working sessions, discussions and site visits that took place within the context of this annual meeting.

OPENING OF THE 45TH ANNUAL MEETING

A. Information Breakfast and Opening Luncheon   

On 10 April 2017, the members of the Canadian delegation took part in an information session, given by Marc Berthiaume, on the CETA between Canada and the EU, and on the French presidential election.

Mr. Berthiaume first explained the milestones that had been passed by CETA and the hurdles that still needed to be overcome to achieve full implementation. He indicated that a great deal of misinformation about CETA was circulating in France, such as the rumours that Europe would be flooded with hormone‑fed Canadian beef and that the Americans would use the Agreement as a stepping stone to help them invade the European market. He added that investors and businesses had a great many questions, but that CETA was the first agreement offering so much protection to businesses through a variety of mechanisms, including the establishment of a 15-member tribunal to adjudicate claims concerning violations of the investment protection standards defined in CETA. Mr. Berthiaume added that some of the candidates in the French presidential election, including Emmanuel Macron and François Fillon, supported CETA, while others (e.g., Marine Le Pen) were opposed to the Agreement.

According to Mr. Berthiaume, economic studies indicated that CETA would create jobs in both Canada and Europe, since medium-sized businesses, which create the most jobs, were expected to benefit from the Agreement. Conversely, he argued that multinational corporations did not need CETA for the success of their activities. He did not expect Brexit to affect relations between Canada and Europe, although it was possible that Great Britain would seek to negotiate its own trade agreement with Canada.

Mr. Berthiaume then gave a thumbnail sketch of the leading candidates in the French presidential election. According to Mr. Berthiaume, recent surveys indicated that Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the “La France insoumise” movement was gaining ground on his opponents and that there was little likelihood of an election victory by Marine Le Pen because French voter participation was traditionally high (usually around 80%). He felt that Ms. Le Pen needed a low voter turnout to stand any chance of winning the election. Lastly, he described Emmanuel Macron as a banker who had achieved financial success and who described himself as leaning neither to the left nor to the right.

The Chair of CFIA’s French branch, Catherine Coutelle, started the working lunch that followed by stating how very pleased the members of the French delegation were to welcome the Canadian delegation to France. She then spoke on the two featured topics of the 45^th annual meeting, emphasizing that immigrant integration is a growing challenge in France. She added that 10 April was the day after the anniversary of a historic moment in the relationship between France and Canada – the Battle of Vimy Ridge – and that the Prime Minister of Canada had pointed out during yesterday’s ceremonies commemorating the battle that Vimy marked the birth of the Canadian nation. She closed by stating that, although the size and shape of the French delegation might vary because of the election campaign, she would participate fully in all of the work of this meeting since she was not a candidate.

The Chair of CFIA’s Canadian branch, Denis Paradis, thanked the members of the French delegation for their warm hospitality and said that the Canadian members felt at home in France. He also noted that he had a particular affection for the South of France. He added that the featured topics of the meeting, namely immigrant integration and the impact of the Canada-EU CETA on the agriculture and agri‑food sector, are headline-making issues in both countries, and are extremely important to the people of Canada and France because of their direct impact on their lives. He referred to the lead-up to the French election as a very exciting time, and he mentioned that the members of the Canadian delegation took a great interest in France’s presidential and legislative elections, as well as in the electoral platforms of the candidates involved. Lastly, he thanked the French hosts for welcoming the Canadian delegation during such a tumultuous period.

IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION

A. Working Session   

The second working session on immigrant integration was held on Friday, 14 April 2017. Member of Parliament Ramez Ayoub opened the session by presenting Canada’s perspective on the issue. Ms. Coutelle then outlined the European and French responses to the wave of migration across the Mediterranean.

1. Canadian Perspective on Immigrant Integration   

Mr. Ayoub started by mentioning that, since its very beginnings, Canada has welcomed immigrants. While the first waves of immigrants who settled in New France in the 17^th century came exclusively from Europe, immigration to Canada became more diverse in the 20^th century.[1] In the latter stages of the 19th century, between 6,300 and 133,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada each year. Record numbers of immigrants were subsequently admitted in the early 1900s when Canada was promoting the settlement of Western Canada. The highest number ever recorded was in 1913, when more than 400,000 immigrants arrived in the country. Other peak levels of immigration were recorded in 1956 and 1957, when tens of thousands of Hungarian refugees came to Canada, and in the 1970s and 1980s, when many refugees were received from a variety of countries.[2]

He continued by stating that, since Confederation in 1867, more than 17 million immigrants have come to Canada.[3] Between the early 1990s and 2014, the average number of immigrants arriving in Canada each year remained relatively stable at about 235,000.[4] This figure was greatly surpassed in 2015 with the arrival of more than 270,000 new permanent residents.[5] Moreover, the 2016 Immigration Levels Plan, which established the number of immigrants the federal government planned to admit to the country in 2016, set a record-high target level of 300,000 immigrants. This target was repeated in the 2017 Immigration Levels Plan.

In 2013, nearly one out of every five persons in Canada (20% of the population or 7 million people) was foreign-born – the highest proportion of foreign-born residents among Group of Seven (G7) countries.[6]

He went on to discuss Canada’s immigration system and policies, Canadian integration and other programs, and various indicators of integration.

a. Immigration System and Policies

He said that under the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, jurisdiction over immigration is shared jointly by the federal government and the provinces and territories.

The federal government is responsible for establishing admission requirements, setting national immigration levels, defining immigration categories, determining refugee claims made within Canada, reuniting families and establishing eligibility criteria for settlement programs in the provinces other than Quebec and in the territories.[7]

Several federal ministers share immigration responsibilities. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is responsible for the development of programs and policies that support the settlement and integration of newcomers and refugees into Canadian society; the Minister of Public Safety is responsible for examinations of persons at ports of entry and policy development respecting inadmissibility on serious grounds; the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour is responsible for assessing the labour market impact of immigration; and the Minister of Justice has responsibilities in protecting the interests of non-citizens subject to a security certificate.

A number of provinces and territories have signed bilateral agreements with the federal government concerning immigration; however, Quebec is the province with the most responsibilities in this area and was the first, in 1971, to sign an agreement with the federal government relating to immigration. Since then, several more such Canada–Quebec agreements have been signed, the most recent being the Canada–Québec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens in 1991. One of the objectives of this accord is “the preservation of Québec’s demographic importance within Canada and the integration of immigrants to that province in a manner that respects the distinct identity of Québec.”[8] Under the terms of this accord, the government of Quebec is responsible for the selection of all immigrants in the “economic immigration” category who wish to settle in Quebec and for the selection of refugees seeking to settle in the province from a pool of applicants approved by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).[9]

b. Integration and other Programs

The integration of immigrants is facilitated by various services that support them in their efforts to settle in and adapt to Canada, including:

• language training;
• assistance to facilitate the settlement of immigrants, including reception and orientation services, community and employment bridging services, and support services, such as daycare and transportation;
• refugee resettlement assistance, such as reception services at the airport or port of entry, temporary accommodations and assistance in finding permanent housing, provision of basic household items, assistance in registering for mandatory federal and provincial programs, training to develop certain skills required for everyday life in Canada, and guidance on financial and non-financial information; and
• labour market integration support.

Although some programs are offered directly by IRCC, the majority are delivered by private-sector agencies funded by the department. For the 2017–2018 fiscal year, the federal government plans to spend close to $1.2 billion on newcomer settlement and integration.[10]

Quebec, however, remains the only province responsible for developing, implementing and managing services to immigrants related to their settlement and relocation in the province.[11] To support Quebec in the execution of its responsibilities in this area, IRCC provides a compensatory lump sum payment to the province; the amount of this payment is determined by means of a formula set out in the Canada–Quebec Accord.

(i) Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program

The Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) Program is unique among resettlement programs in that sponsors may refer refugees for resettlement to IRCC. The sponsors assume all of the financial costs for the initial resettlement period, allowing more refugees to be resettled to Canada without increasing government costs.

Private sponsors in the PSR Program include: incorporated groups with an ongoing agreement with IRCC to sponsor refugees (Sponsorship Agreement Holders); groups of five Canadians or permanent residents; and community sponsors.[12] For example, as part of the Canadian government initiative for the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Canada, several new agreements to sponsor Syrian refugees were approved.

In the PSR Program, private sponsors provide initial settlement support, as well as emotional and social support. Total estimated costs for sponsoring a single individual in 2016 were $12,600, while sponsoring a family of six was estimated to cost $32,500.[13] Sponsors must submit a settlement plan and financial assessment to IRCC demonstrating that the refugee family will receive the support required. Privately sponsored refugees are destined to the community where their sponsor(s) reside(s).

(ii) Temporary Foreign Worker Program

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program[14] allows Canadian employers to hire foreign nationals to respond to temporary labour and skill shortages when qualified Canadian citizens or permanent residents are not available. In 2015, more than 60,000 temporary foreign workers held work permits through the program.[15]

c. Indicators of Integration

Mr. Ayoub then introduced Table 1 (see below), which presents indicators of integration from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for foreign-born individuals who have settled in Canada, France or one of the 28 EU Member States.[16]

The table indicates that foreign-born individuals have a lower employment rate and a higher unemployment rate than native-born individuals. Foreign-born individuals also have a greater tendency to occupy jobs for which they are overqualified.

Furthermore, in France and in the EU countries, the literacy test results of native-born children of immigrants tend to be significantly lower than those of children born in France or an EU country of native-born parents; this contrasts with Canada, where the literacy results for Canadian-born children of immigrants are higher than those of Canadian-born children of Canadian-born parents.

In 2012, a greater percentage of foreign-born residents of Canada acquired citizenship, versus foreign‑born residents of France or of other EU Member States. Fewer than one out of two European immigrants were citizens of their EU host country, as compared to at least 80% of immigrants in Canada who were citizens.

Table 1 – Indicators of Integration of Foreign-Born Persons Living in Canada, France
and European Union Member States, 2013
(or the most recent year for which data are available)

Mr. Ayoub closed his remarks by concluding that, unlike France, which is subjected to immigration, Canada chooses immigration. He also spoke of his own immigrant experience, since he and his family came to Canada when he was three years old.

2. European and French Responses to Mediterranean Migration Wave   

Ms. Coutelle started her presentation by stating that the EU has been dealing with an exceptionally large wave of immigration since 2014, which she even referred to as an “immigration crisis.” This wave crested in 2015, when slightly more than 1.8 million irregular entries, representing approximately 1 million people according to Frontex[17] (allowing for the number of crossings of several European borders by particular individuals), were reported.

An increase in irregular entries was previously noted during the Arab Spring in 2011, but the scale and duration of that increase had remained far less pronounced.

She then discussed migration flows in the eastern and central Mediterranean, the principal departure, arrival and destination countries for migrants, the emergency measures and structural reforms put in place by the EU, and France’s short- and long-term responses to the situation.

a. Migration Flows in the Eastern and Central Mediterranean

On the subject of migration flows, Ms. Coutelle noted that, with a reported 511,000 irregular entries representing approximately 382,000 people in 2016, the EU as a whole seems to have withstood the worst of the wave. There are very different dynamics at play, however, beneath the surface:

• In the eastern Mediterranean, slightly more than 182,000 irregular entries occurred in 2016 versus 885,000 in 2015 – a drop of 80%. The net reduction in the number of arrivals coincided with the implementation of the EU–Turkey Statement of March 2016 (presented below) and the closing of the borders along the Balkan route.
• In the central Mediterranean, conversely, migration flows via Libya continued unabated as nearly 182,000 arrivals were reported in 2016 – an 18% increase over 2015.

These contrasting developments are the result of very different situations along these two migration routes: the joint EU–Turkey Statement has created a tool for managing migration in the eastern Mediterranean, whereas the prospects for future action remain limited when it comes to the difficult situation in Libya.

In the medium term, several structural factors lead us to believe that arrivals via the central Mediterranean route will continue apace for quite some time. These include: African demographic growth prospects, the likely impact of climate change (particularly in desert areas) and the developments in several countries in the immediate vicinity of the EU (Libya, Algeria and Tunisia).

b. Principal Departure, Arrival and Destination Countries for Migrants

(i) Departure Countries

In 2016, for all migration routes combined, 10 countries accounted for 75% of arrivals: Syria (23%), Afghanistan (12%), Nigeria (10%), Iraq (8%), Eritrea (6%), Guinea-Conakry (4%), Côte d’Ivoire (4%), Gambia (4%), Pakistan (3%) and Senegal (3%).

The conflict that has been going on in Syria since 2011 has created a security, humanitarian and economic disaster situation that has forced more than half the population to flee their homes (6.3 million displaced persons inside the country and 4.9 million refugees). Although the majority of refugees have found asylum in Syria’s neighbours, deteriorating conditions for dealing with refugees in those countries and the persistence of the conflict drove a large number of refugees to attempt to enter Europe in 2014 and 2015. The number of departures for Europe declined in 2016, however, with the implementation of the EU–Turkey Statement.

As to migration flows from the African continent, the number of African migrant arrivals increased from an average of approximately 40,000 annually between 2009 and 2014 to 170,000 in 2016. Given the contrasting evolution of the migratory routes to Europe and the ongoing crisis in Libya, it is likely that Africa will henceforth represent the principal continent of origin for migrants.

Migration from Africa is primarily due to economic factors, although situations vary considerably from one country of origin to the next: migration flows from Africa can in fact have political and security causes, with Eritrea being a case in point.

(ii) Arrival and Destination Countries

The impact of the migration crisis has varied widely across the EU. A number of countries, in part because of their geographic location, did not suffer a massive influx of migrants (e.g., Spain, Ireland, Portugal, the Baltic States and the United Kingdom), whereas others were severely affected, in particular:

• Italy: Since the Arab Spring in 2011, more than 600,000 people have arrived in Italy via the central Mediterranean, and the pace of arrivals has increased substantially in recent years: 62,000 arrivals in 2011 contrasted with 170,000 in 2014, 153,000 in 2015 and 182,000 in 2016. The country’s capacity to receive migrants has now largely reached the saturation point: in January 2017, there were 175,000 people being accommodated, as compared to 66,000 in 2014. Italy is among the Member States receiving the most refugee claims: nearly 125,000 in 2016 versus 83,000 in 2015.
• Greece: Approximately 860,000 arrived in the EU via Greece in 2015. This number dropped to 182,000 in 2016, largely because of the implementation of the EU–Turkey Statement. Substantial reception capacity problems continue to exist, however, for the tens of thousands of migrants still present in Greek territory. The situation in Greece has evolved from a migration crisis into a refugee crisis, with a very large increase in refugee claims: 31,000 in 2016 versus only 13,000 in 2015.
• Hungary: It was at the centre of the migration journey in 2015 until it closed its borders with the Balkans: 400,000 irregular migrants crossed into Hungary, primarily on their way to Austria and then Germany. In 2015, Hungary received more than 177,000 applications for asylum; however, most of these applications were ultimately cancelled when the applicants left the country.
• Germany: The number of migrants entering Germany fell from a high of approximately 890,000 in 2015 to 280,000 in 2016, primarily as a result of the implementation of the EU–Turkey Statement and measures to close the route through the Balkans. In 2016, 745,000 applications for asylum were recorded, accounting for two-thirds of all asylum applications filed across the entire EU. Since the start of the crisis, Germany has granted protection to a total of about 750,000 people.
• Austria: Some 700,000 people in 2015 and 150,000 in 2016 transited through Austria, primarily on their way to Germany. However, Austria also became a destination country: 85,000 requests for asylum were received by Austria in 2015 and 42,000 in 2016.
• France: The situation in France has been relatively atypical: the increase in migration flows was less severe than in other countries in 2015, but the decrease noted in 2016 was also not as striking than elsewhere. The number of applications for asylum increased from 65,000 in 2014 to 80,000 in 2015 and 85,000 in 2016. This increase was accompanied by a rise in the numbers of applicants receiving protection, from 10,000 beneficiaries in 2012 to 26,000 in 2016. The effects of migration pressure are strongly concentrated in certain areas of the country: in the vicinity of Ventimiglia (800 queries per week), in the Calais region (7,000 people in the makeshift “jungle camp” before it was dismantled in October 2016) and in the Paris region (up to 3,800 people around Place Stalingrad in 2016).

c. Emergency Measures and Structural Reforms in the European Union

Ms. Coutelle continued by explaining that, in response to the migration crisis, the EU first put in place a number of emergency measures to help control a situation that had become critical by 2014–2015, then undertook reforms of a more structural nature.

(i) Emergency Measures

a) Establishment of Hotspots in Greece and Italy

In the spring of 2015, the EU decided to establish hotspots (crisis centres) in Greece and Italy, in cooperation with the other Member States and Frontex, to deal with the massive amount of arrivals in those countries. These hotspots made it possible to concentrate at the busiest arrival points the means required to maintain border controls: migrant registration, security clearances and initiation of asylum or expulsion procedures.

Four hotspots were established in Italy, with a total reception capacity of 1,600 people, and five were established in Greece, with a total reception capacity of 5,500 people.

In addition, because Greece was involved, the EU provided extra assistance: in 2015, the Member States donated 185,000 essential humanitarian goods and, in 2016, they disbursed 200 million euros to Greece.

b) Restoring Internal European Border Controls

In September 2015, in order to deal with the exceptionally heavy flow of migrants, eight European countries (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Slovenia, Sweden and Norway) decided to restore controls along certain segments of the borders within the Schengen area.[18] Subsequently, in November 2015, France reinstituted controls over all of its borders in the wake of terrorist attacks and as part of the state of emergency.

In February 2017, the EU recommended that the internal border controls reinstituted by five European States (Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Sweden) be extended for an additional three months.

c) Temporary Intra-European Relocation Mechanism

To alleviate the pressure on Greece and Italy, the EU created a temporary mechanism in September 2015 to relocate 160,000 refugees out of these two countries over a two-year period.

Some Member States were reluctant to endorse the relocation mechanism: Hungary and Slovakia, in fact, challenged it before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Moreover, progress in its actual implementation has been very slow: by February 2017, only 12,000 refugees had been relocated. France is the country that has received the largest number of effective relocations (2,700).

d) Temporary Mechanism for Resettlement from Third Countries

In order to help initial countries of reception (Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey), the EU in July 2015 created a temporary mechanism to ensure the resettlement of 22,500 refugees over two years from these countries to Member States. Within the context of this mechanism, France made a commitment to accept 2,300 resettlements.

The resettlement initiative has progressed more effectively than the relocation initiative: by February 2017, 14,000 refugees had been resettled under this mechanism.

e) The EU–Turkey Statement of March 2016

The dramatic acceleration in irregular entries into Greece prompted the EU to arrive at an agreement with Turkey in March 2016 (the EU–Turkey Statement). This agreement contained the following key measures with respect to management of the migration crisis:

• Turkey agreed to readmit all new irregular migrants or rejected asylum seekers who had crossed from Turkey into Greek islands after the signing of the agreement, and to prevent the opening of new routes for illegal migration from Turkey to the EU;
• To replace irregular migration with legal migration, the EU Member States agreed to resettle one Syrian refugee from Turkey to the EU for each Syrian returned to Turkey (“1 for 1” principle); and
• The EU agreed to pay 6 billion euros in aid by the end of 2018 to assist Syrian refugees and host communities in Turkey.

This agreement had an immediate impact: the number of arrivals to Greece has declined considerably since its implementation; the number of resettlements to the EU (3,000 resettlements) has outpaced the number of returns to Turkey (1,200 returns); and 2.2 billion euros in financial aid has already been allocated as of January 2017.

f) Actions Taken in the Central Mediterranean in Connection with Libya

The EU has deployed two maritime operations in the central Mediterranean: Operation Triton, coordinated by Frontex, and Operation Sophia, under the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The essential focus of these operations is to conduct sea rescue missions: more than 50,000 people were rescued by Triton in 2016 and more than 30,000 by Sophia.

However, the death toll in the Mediterranean continues to rise: human smugglers are now loading more migrants into zodiac-type vessels that are unsuitable for the high seas and carry very little fuel.

Another problem is that Operation Sophia cannot entirely fulfil its mandate, which includes carrying out actions in Libyan territorial waters, because there is no agreement in place with the Libyan authorities.

(ii) Structural Reforms

a) Creation of a New European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Founded upon the pre-existing structures of Frontex, the name of which has been preserved, a new European Border and Coast Guard Agency was created in September 2016. The new Frontex has broader responsibilities and capacities that have been strengthened in several respects:

• a reserve of 1,500 officers who can be mobilized for action in 5 days;
• annual vulnerability assessments to check the crisis management capabilities of Member States;
• the possibility of intervening at Europe’s external borders upon the initiative of the European Commission and Council, even if the Member State does not request it, but subject to a strict procedure; and
• a substantial increase in its budget and human resources: the budget will increase from 300 million euros in 2017 to 345 million euros in 2020, and the Agency’s staff will increase from 640 officers in 2017 to 880 officers in 2019.

b) Toward a Revision of the Common European Asylum System

In the wake of the shortcomings noted in the workings of the Common European Asylum System since the start of the migration crisis, the European Commission presented a series of reform proposals in the spring of 2016, which are still being debated.

In particular, the proposed revision of the Dublin Regulation respecting asylum aims, on the one hand, to reduce delays in the transfer of applications between Member States and, on the other hand, to create a mechanism for the distribution of asylum seekers when excessive pressure is exerted on the system of a particular Member State. The principle of responsibility of the migrant’s country of first entry would thus be maintained, but accompanied by a corrective relocation mechanism in the event of a crisis.

However, the creation of an automatic mechanism for the distribution of asylum seekers remains a very sensitive subject across Europe, as we have seen from the reluctance of some Member States to apply the current temporary relocation mechanism.

The proposed revision of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) Regulation seeks to transform the EASO into a true European asylum agency that would be responsible for assessing the asylum systems of the Member States, developing guidelines and, in cases where the asylum system of a Member State is found to be deficient, providing operational and technical assistance by means of an asylum intervention pool of 500 experts.

Finally, the proposal for a new regulation to establish a framework for resettlement in the EU seeks to establish a common policy on resettlement in third countries. The Member States would continue to decide on the number of persons to resettle each year, but harmonized practices and a permanent common framework would be developed at the community level.

c) Establishment of an Overall Partnership with African Countries

In light of the persistent influx of migrants to the EU via the central Mediterranean route and the impossibility of reaching an agreement with Libya similar to the one signed with Turkey, the EU decided in November 2015 (at the Valletta Summit on migration) to put in place a framework for an overall partnership with African countries.

This framework rests on a policy statement setting out the shared responsibility of the EU and Africa for migration issues, combined with an action plan to combat the underlying causes of irregular migration, supported financially by the creation of an emergency trust fund for Africa.

The purpose of this fund is to finance concrete projects to improve migration management and fight the deep-seated causes of regional instability and irregular migration, while generating new economic opportunities and promoting security and development.

At the end of 2016, the emergency trust fund for Africa had resources totalling 2.4 billion euros set aside for 26 countries situated primarily in the following regions: Sahel – Lake Chad, the Horn of Africa and North Africa.

d) France’s Short- and Long-term Responses

Ms. Coutelle noted that France has participated in all of the common measures implemented by the EU, in particular with respect to relocation, but that it had also deployed short- and long-term solutions at the national level.

(i) Short-term Responses

a) Financial and Military Aid in Response to the Syrian Crisis

France put together emergency financial aid to deal with the consequences of the Syrian crisis. Between 2011 and 2015, this aid (totalling 155 million euros) went primarily to Lebanon (57 million euros), Syria (42 million euros), Jordan (31 million euros) and Turkey (10 million euros). For the
2016–2018 period, the budget for this aid was increased to 200 million euros.

France also participates in military operations against Daesh, with a commitment of 1,200 troops and a considerable amount of military equipment under Operation Chammal.

b) Creation of New Living Accommodations for Refugees

In response to the influx of migrants, the French government rushed to create additional living accommodations for refugees. In fact, 8,200 additional places were created in 2015–2016.

In October 2015, reception and orientation centres (CAOs) were established to welcome migrants in vulnerable situations. This temporary welcome service provides support in securing access to entitlements and referrals to other suitable facilities. As of the end of January 2017, 310 of these centres had been established in 84 departments, providing reception services to some 10,000 people.

Finally, in December 2015, the government announced a national plan to increase France’s overall capacity to receive asylum seekers. This plan included a target of living accommodations for 60,000 people by the end of 2017, including 40,000 in reception centres for asylum seekers (CADAs) located all across the country. This marks a considerable increase in effort, since the number of places in CADAs totalled 25,000 in 2015.

(ii) Long-term Reforms

a) Reform of Asylum Rights via the Law of 29 July 2015

France first proceeded with a fundamental reform of the right to asylum with the passage of the Law n^o. 2015-925 of 29 July 2015 respecting the reform of asylum rights [AVAILABLE IN FRENCH ONLY]. This legislation increased the rights of asylum seekers, by:

• allowing asylum seekers to be assisted by counsel before the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA);
• systematizing the suspensive effect of appeals before the National Court of Asylum (CNDA) for asylum seekers, even in accelerated procedures; and
• creating a new appeal before the Administrative Court for detained persons who are applying for asylum, provided such application is not being made for the sole purpose of avoiding deportation.

This legislation also speeds up the normal procedures for processing applications, targeting a processing time of 9 months by 2016–2017, as compared to the processing time of 15 months that existed previously. To that end:

• access to the application procedure has been facilitated by eliminating the requirement for prior domiciliation, simplifying registration procedures, consolidating the residence documents required and eventually creating in each region a single window for initial reception; and
• additional resources are being provided to OFPRA for examining applications, with the recruitment of 55 new employees.

b) Creation of a Path to Integration into French Society by the Law of 7 March 2016

France then carried out an in-depth reform of the rights of foreign nationals with the passage of the Law no 2016-274 of 7 March 2016 respecting the reform of the rights of foreign nationals [AVAILABLE IN FRENCH ONLY]. In particular, this legislation created a personalized path to integration into French society for newly arrived foreign nationals seeking to settle in France.

The path is as follows:

• a foreign newcomer first undergoes a reception interview at the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII), which assesses his or her situation;
• during the course of the interview, he or she signs an “integration into French society” contract requiring him or her to take civics lessons and language training, as prescribed by the OFII representative; and
• to apply for a residence permit, a foreign national must now demonstrate that he or she regularly attended and participated seriously in the training prescribed under the contract.

c) Bolstering the Fight Against Illegal Immigration

In France, the fight against illegal immigration is led by the border police (PAF), which has a national service – the Central Office for the Suppression of Illegal Immigration and Employment of Foreigners Without Residence Permits (OCRIEST) – staffed with 125 employees. PAF also relies on 47 mobile brigades with a total staff of 500. In all, this represents a total of 625 investigators across the country.

The fight against illegal immigration channels has intensified in recent years, with significant results: 221 networks were shut down in 2014, 251 in 2015 and 286 in 2016.

The Law of 7 March 2016 created several new law enforcement tools:

• it allows prefectures to identify fraud with respect to residence permits by giving them access to information held by other government organizations and private operators in order to verify the authenticity of documents produced by those applying for residence permits;
• it allows for criminal penalties for using or providing identity documents belonging to a third party;
• it authorizes the government to call upon law enforcement to take an illegal alien to the consulate in order to initiate return proceedings;
• it allows France to require European citizens to leave the country on the grounds of a serious breach of public order (in the past, expulsion for this reason was only possible during the first three months of someone’s presence in France); and
• it allows the government to ban from returning to French soil any European citizens who were ever placed under an Obligation to Leave French Territory (OQTF) for threatening public order or abusing rights.

Ms. Coutelle concluded by stating that only two members of the French National Assembly were born outside France and that the number of foreign nationals in France is increasing slowly, with 217,000 residence permits having been issued in 2015. She added that France has adopted a strong policy to fight illegal immigration, which mushroomed in 2015, in particular by calling on the military. She also noted that there are two distinct paths available to migrants: the regular path and the illegal immigration path wherein migrants from Africa rely on human smugglers to take them to Europe. Lastly, she mentioned that there are two ongoing debates in France concerning immigration: the debate on what exactly constitutes the French identity, and the debate on whether immigrants should be integrated or assimilated.

B. Site Visits and Meetings   

To gather additional information on the topic of immigrant integration, the delegates visited and met with representatives of the Reception Platform for Asylum Seekers (PADA) in Marseille, representatives and beneficiaries of the Jane Pannier Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers (CADA), Chair of the Law Commission of the French National Assembly, members of the Minister of the Interior’s staff, officials representing the Ministry of the Interior, and representatives of OFPRA.

1. Reception Platform for Asylum Seekers   

On 11 April 2017, the delegates visited the offices of the Marseille Reception Platform for Asylum Seekers (PADA) and held discussions with its Executive Director, Jean‑François Ploquin, and Manager Manon Tervel. This particular PADA is managed by Forum réfugiés-Cosi, a non‑profit association that welcomes refugees and lobbies for asylum rights in France, promotes human rights in certain refugee countries of origin, and enjoys special advisor status with the United Nations (UN). Forum réfugiés-Cosi manages six PADAs, has 280 employees and a complement of 300 volunteers. Its activities are funded primarily by the French government, the EU, the UN, territorial communities and private foundations.

The six PADAs run by the organization are located in Clermont-Ferrand (since 2014), Lyon (since 1994), Marseille (since 2016), Nice (since 2011), Toulouse (since 2017) and Montauban (since 2017). They serve as initial administrative contact points, referring asylum seekers to the various agencies and organizations that can help them settle in France, while also preparing them for the next step in the asylum procedure: the Single Gateway for Asylum Applications, which consists of prefecture and OFII officials. In addition, these reception platforms centralize information and provide legal, administrative and social support services to asylum seekers. Figure 1 presents a summary of the procedures regarding asylum applications and residency in France, starting with the PADAs.

PADAs initially provide assistance in filing asylum applications, assess the situation of newcomers and guide them toward the appropriate services. Once applicants have gone through the Single Gateway for Asylum Applications, PADAs provide them with assistance in such areas as:

• domiciliation;
• directing them to housing organizations;
• helping asylum seekers in the national reception system without accommodation to find alternative housing;
• emergency assistance;
• opening a file with OFPRA;
• administrative and social services; and
• information and administration for people leaving the reception system.

Throughout the asylum process, asylum seekers have access through PADAs to such services as medical advice, psychological services, physical therapy, cosmetic and personal care sessions, art therapy workshops and preventive services. Integration assistance services are also available.

The delegates learned that 1,204,300 people in 2016 were first-time applicants for international protection to one of the EU Member States. France received 78,371 first-time applications for asylum, ranking it third among European nations, with only Germany and Italy receiving more applications.

In 2016, French PADAs had to cope with an increase in demand for asylum across the country due to the fact that CAOs opened following the dismantling of refugee camps at Calais and Ile-de-France and the arrival of resettled refugees. The PADAs thus welcomed 10,974 people, registered 8,661 intents to apply for asylum and provided support to 8,194 applicants.

The Marseille PADA opened on 11 January 2016, sharing its premises with a women’s hospitality association. In November 2016, it moved to a location more suitable for dealing with the public. In 2016, the Bouches-du-Rhône department reported a 13% increase in the number of newcomers, which contributed to longer wait times for processing through the Single Gateway for Asylum Applications. In its first year of existence, the Marseille PADA, which has ten employees (including two lawyers), recorded 3,138 expressions of intent to apply for asylum from 3,495 people (78% adults and 22% children), primarily from Algeria (17.7%), Syria (12.5%), Albania (11.8%), Sudan (8.6%) and Turkey (5.4%). These 2016 contacts resulted in:

• 1,792 people being domiciled;
• 1,467 people being referred to alternative accommodation;
• 337 people being referred to emergency aid services;
• 1,060 people receiving support to open an OFPRA file;
• 1,941 people receiving assistance to obtain health coverage;
• 535 people receiving help to open bank accounts; and
• 304 children being enrolled in school.

The PADA representatives explained that applicants for asylum arrive in France primarily via overland routes after passing through Italy, and that their organization is called upon to manage a flow of some 200 persons daily.

In answer to a question from a delegate, they stated that housing assistance is offered to asylum seekers throughout the period when their applications are being processed and that denied applicants are referred to certain French organizations to plan and cover the cost of the return to their country of origin.

Replying to other questions, the representatives indicated that the approval rate for asylum applications is currently 37% and that France has committed to receiving 10,000 Syrian refugees over a period of two years.

Lastly, after engaging in discussions and visiting the premises, the delegates thanked the representatives for their time and hospitality.

2. Jane Pannier Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers

The delegates then visited one of the centres operated by the Maison de la Jeune Fille – Centre Jane Pannier association, namely the Jane Pannier CADA. The centre has the capacity to welcome up to 85 people (including 30 with reduced mobility issues) in seven apartments equipped to accommodate families with one or more members battling severe health or mobility problems. The association has been engaged in providing social housing to isolated women and families in distress within the boundaries of the city of Marseille since 1919, and it currently provides accommodation to more than 1,000 people annually. It has 38 permanent employees, including teachers, social workers, a social and home economics advisor, a physician, a nurse, a psychologist, a workshop facilitator, overnight standby staff, and five people on integration contracts, as well as numerous volunteers.

The CADAs:

provide refugee claimants with reception services for the entire time their claim is being considered. Reception services include accommodations, administrative assistance (help with the refugee claim procedure), social support (access to health care, education for children, etc.) and food assistance. ^[19]

These centres are usually administered by associations or businesses.

In France, reception services for asylum seekers and government funding for the CADAs are provided pursuant to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 (or Geneva Convention).

The Bouches-du-Rhône department has 11 CADAs that can accommodate up to 1,200 people, or about 60% of all asylum applicants in the region, according to the employees of the Jane Pannier CADA. The employees added that France has 60,000 spaces for the housing of asylum applicants, but that it has to deal with 90,000 applicants. Although housing is provided to applicants for the entire period of processing of their application, applicants still have one month to leave their lodgings if their application is denied.

CADA employees also pointed out that, in 1991, asylum applicants had the right to work on French soil taken away from them for the period that their application was being processed. They closed by explaining that their organization concentrates on the protection of women and recognition of women’s rights.

Lastly, the delegates had the opportunity to visit and talk to families housed by the Jane Pannier CADA.

3. Discussion on Immigration with the Chair of the Law Commission of the French National Assembly    

On 12 April 2017, the delegates held a discussion session on immigration with Dominique Raimbourg, who chairs the Law Commission of the French National Assembly. Ms. Coutelle introduced Mr. Raimbourg and explained that the delegates had already visited the Marseille PADA and a CADA as well. She then asked him to speak on the subject of immigration in France.

After thanking the members of the Canadian delegation for their invitation and welcoming them to France, he explained that there are three types of immigration. The first of these categories is traditional immigration, namely the introduction of foreign nationals into French territory. France’s current population of nearly 67 million includes some 5 million foreign-born individuals. This foreign-born cohort consists largely of Algerians, Moroccans and Tunisians. He added that approximately 200,000 foreign nationals enter France annually for various reasons, such as family reunification or in order to further their education. Moreover, many foreign nationals come to France in the hope of finding work. He noted that the immigrant population is not scattered evenly across France, and that it is concentrated in certain regions, such as the eastern and southeastern parts of the country.

The second category is asylum immigration. He explained that each year, France processes tens of thousands of applications for asylum and expels some 15,000 asylum seekers. He added that some asylum seekers whose applications are rejected do not leave French territory.

The third category is intra-European immigration, i.e., immigrants to France from EU Member States. On 1 January 2014, the restrictions on the free movement of Bulgarian and Romanian citizens within the EU were lifted. Hence, Bulgarian and Romanian citizens are now fully entitled to work in all EU Member States without having to apply for a work permit. Mr. Raimbourg noted that there are approximately 20,000 unintegrated Roma[20] people living illegally in France and that there is an ongoing debate concerning their integration into French society. In his opinion, these people primarily make their living by begging and some engage in criminal activity.

Mr. Raimbourg continued by saying that the flow of migrants and asylum seekers in Europe has led to a debate in Schengen area countries concerning the borders of the area, and that there is considerable pressure on perimeter border countries because they are responsible for controlling entries into the Schengen area.

He also noted that foreign-born newcomers to France must sign “integration into French society” contracts with the state requiring them to take prescribed training after being interviewed by an OFII official.

In answer to questions from the delegates, Mr. Raimbourg indicated that France approved 98% of the applications filed by asylum seekers of Syrian origin. He also spoke of the difficulties arising from foreign-born minors who were brought into Europe by human smugglers, in particular the manner in which authorities go about determining the age of foreign nationals in order to categorize them as minors or adults, such as bone testing. Since France has very stringent regulations protecting foreign-born minors, regardless of their legal status, many foreign nationals declare themselves to be minors when they arrive in France.

The delegates thanked Mr. Raimbourg warmly for his time and expertise.

4. Discussion on Immigration with Members of the Minister of the Interior’s Staff and with Ministry Representatives    

At the end of the meeting, French Minister of the Interior Matthias Fekl generously came by to greet the delegates. The delegates thanked him for having taken the time to meet with them, and they also thanked the members of his staff and his ministry’s officials for providing explanations and answering their questions.

On 14 April 2017, the delegates discussed immigration with Emmanuel Cayron, an advisor on immigration and asylum issues with the Minister of the Interior’s staff; Romain Derache, Parliamentary Advisor; Camille Perez, Parliamentary Advisor; Agnès Fontana, Director, Reception and Support of Non‑Nationals and Nationality; and Thomas Campeaux, Director, Public Freedoms and Legal Affairs.

Mr. Cayron opened the discussion by informing the delegates that a migrant camp at Grande-Synthe, in northern France, had been completely destroyed by fire during the night of 11–12 April 2017. This camp had held approximately 1,500 migrants, primarily of Iraqi and Kurdish origin, and the authorities were forced to find emergency accommodations for these people.

Ms. Coutelle then introduced the delegation, described the CFIA and outlined the topics to be examined at this 45^th annual meeting of the CFIA. She also thanked the members of the Minister of the Interior’s staff, as well as the Ministry of the Interior officials, for their hospitality and their time.

Ms. Fontana took the floor and explained the main facets of France’s policy on the reception and integration of newcomers, including the Law of 7 March 2016. She then described the steps that foreign-born newcomers must take upon their arrival in French territory, emphasizing that the government assesses the situations of foreign‑born newcomers and refers them to the institutions and services that can assist them. Among other things, this assessment includes an evaluation of French-language skills. Those who fail to demonstrate a sufficient command of the French language are entitled to receive free language training for a period of up to one year, as well as other training courses on French social and civic values. She added that, after one year of free government language courses, foreign newcomers who remain deficient in their command of French are urged to enroll in further language training. She told the delegates that the language training provided in the current cost-free course offerings was insufficient, since only 44% of those who took these courses achieved the required level of proficiency. Asylum seekers are not eligible to enrol in these language courses until the government has ruled on their applications and granted them refugee status. Mr. Cayron noted that the average processing time for an application for asylum is six to eight months.

In reply to a question from a delegate, Ms. Fontana explained that foreign nationals have to meet a number of requirements in order to obtain French citizenship, including at least five years of residency in France. She also explained that financial self-sufficiency is an important factor in this regard. She noted, however, that some of these requirements are waived in the case of refugees.

Concerning professional immigration, since November 2016, France has been issuing so-called “talent passports” – residence permits valid for a period of up to four years – to professionals and their families. The purpose of these “passports” is to make it easier for professionals to stay in France, since the country wishes to attract them in greater numbers. This permit is available to ten categories of professionals:

• skilled young graduates working as salaried employees or employees of new innovative companies;
• highly skilled workers, such as holders of a European Blue Card, which facilitates the entry into the EU for work and residency purposes of highly skilled workers residing in non-EU countries;
• employees on assignment;
• researchers;
• entrepreneurs;
• people engaged in an innovative economic project;
• economic investors;
• officers of a company;
• performers; and
• • foreign nationals who have achieved national or international recognition (in fields such as science, literature, the arts, sports and education).^[21]

In reply to a question from a Canadian delegate, Ms. Coutelle explained that many migrants are brought into the EU by human smugglers and that many of them are trying to get to the United Kingdom because they have relatives there or because they already speak English. Mr. Cayron added that some verification procedures are easier in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cayron also indicated that, in late October and early November 2016, or thereabouts, French authorities had to displace 7,000 migrants out of the Calais camp, but he did not specify the reasons for this action. He added that it had been difficult to get the minors to move, as they were more reluctant to leave the camp because they had a strong desire to enter the United Kingdom.

5. Discussion with Representatives of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons    

On 14 April 2017, the delegates met with the following representatives of OFPRA: Sophie Pegliasco, Chief of Staff in the office of the Executive Director; Leïla Benshila-Kesen, Deputy Head of the Europe-Asia Division; Coralie Capdeboscq, who is in charge of the “Vulnerability” Sector and leader of the “Human Trafficking” Group; and Pascal Lang, Head of the Litigation Section of the Legal, European and International Affairs Division. OFPRA is a public agency established in 1952 to apply the Geneva Convention and, subsequently, the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. Its role is to decide independently on applications by individuals to be granted refugee or stateless status.

Ms. Coutelle first introduced the delegations and outlined the role of the CFIA. She then indicated that the delegates had already visited a PADA and a CADA in Marseille and had met with Dominique Raimbourg, as well as with members of the Minister of the Interior’s staff and Ministry of the Interior officials to discuss immigration issues.

OFPRA representatives explained that their organization comprises several geographic divisions and handles refugee claims and requests to be granted stateless status. In recent years, OFPRA has received extra funding to deal with the large influx of migrants. In 2016, OFPRA received 85,000 applications (a 7% increase over 2015) and made nearly 90,000 decisions with respect to those applications.

The representatives then explained that France had enacted the Law of 29 July 2015 in order to fundamentally reform asylum rights in France by strengthening the guarantees given to persons in need of international protection and speeding up the adjudication of applications for asylum to a targeted average of nine months. According to the representatives, the primary goal of this legislation was to reduce the amount of time required to process applications for asylum, which was considered excessive.

The representatives explained the French residency requirements and procedures for asylum seekers, pointing out that foreign-born newcomers to France had 21 days to file an application for asylum and that there were two types of procedures: normal and accelerated. They added that, under the accelerated or “fast-track” procedure, applications were processed in 15 days and that the type of procedure used in each case is determined on the basis of the applicant’s country of origin. OFPRA has a group of employees assigned to each country from which France receives a large flow of asylum seekers. When OFPRA receives an application, the applicant’s file is examined by a protection officer assigned to the applicant’s country of origin; this officer reviews the applicant’s story before summoning the applicant to an interview of one to two hours. The officer then recommends a decision that is reviewed by his or her supervisor.

The delegates learned that the Law of 29 July 2015 had strengthened the asylum procedure, in particular by making interviews confidential and requiring that they be recorded. This makes it possible for an applicant to request a transcript of his or her interview. In addition, an applicant can ask for a third party to be present at the interview, such as a lawyer or an interpreter of the gender of his or her choosing.

Ms. Coutelle pointed out that since the Geneva Convention came into effect, applicants for asylum had been primarily men who were victims of the political regimes in their countries, but that now, many women were applying for asylum as well. The Law seeks to protect them and give them the opportunity to speak alone with a protection officer.

In reply to questions from delegates, the representatives explained that asylum seekers were responsible for their legal fees, although a number of volunteer organizations do offer legal aid to applicants. They also pointed out that not all applicants are in an illegal situation since some of them arrive in France with residence visas.

Concerning the procedures for appealing OFPRA decisions on applications for asylum, the representatives indicated that appeals are brought before the National Court of Asylum and that a judge must rule on the appeal within a very short time. They added that appeals must be filed within specified time frames by rejected applicants, who will then be summoned to a hearing by the judge before a decision is rendered.

According to the representatives, the countries of origin of asylum seekers have changed significantly since the spring of 2015. Albania now ranks first because of economic considerations and its easy access to France. A considerable increase in applications for asylum from Haitians has been recorded in French Guiana. However, the representatives noted that these applications for asylum are primarily due to economic reasons and are generally based on weaker grounds.

Syrian refugees received by France are selected by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the basis of vulnerability. They are pre-registered by OFPRA because they have been screened and are thus considered low-risk.

Lastly, the delegates thanked the representatives for meeting with them.

IMPACT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION ON THE AGRICULTURAL AND AGRI-FOOD SECTOR

A. Working Session   

The first working session on the impact of CETA on the agriculture and agri-food sector was held on 13 April 2017. Senator Pierre-Yves Collombat and Senator Jean Bizet, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs of the French Senate, presented their views on CETA, while MP Alain Rayes explained the impact of the Agreement on the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector.

1. French Perspectives on the Agreement   

a. Senator Collombat

At the outset, Senator Collombat said he was not in favour of CETA for a number of reasons, including the fact that the benefits are not the same for both parties, as the Canadian market, with nearly 36 million consumers, is much smaller than the European market. He added that the agreement is not between Canada and France but between Canada and the European Union, which he said was quite a different matter. He said his opinion would be different if the Agreement were only between France and Canada. According to him, the opening of European markets to non-European countries has always been at the expense of European countries, and he prefers stronger economic and trade relations among these countries.

He went on to say that deepening economic and trade relations with foreign countries, for example, through free trade, is supposed to have a positive impact on the economy by increasing growth and reducing unemployment. However, in his view, past experience has shown that this is not what happened. He referred to Maurice Allais, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1988, who said that free trade policy led to the destruction of jobs and industries and undermined economic growth.

He also said that the EU has never recovered from the economic crisis that hit the global economy in 2008 and that this crisis has affected the EU more than other developed countries. According to him, even in the best case scenario, CETA will contribute absolutely nothing and will not help advance the EU. In his opinion, the EU is undergoing a major crisis with growing rejection and distrust, and the Agreement will in no way solve this problem. He added that free trade basically benefits only multinationals.

Lastly, he deplored the provisional application of the Agreement, which he described as a major breach of the state ratification process, as it would be in place prior to ratification.

b. Senator Bizet

Senator Bizet began by explaining how the EU works in terms of treaties, saying the EU alone negotiates agreements, but, because CETA is a multilateral treaty, national parliaments have a right to review it. However, some provisions of the Agreement will apply before Member States ratify the entire document. He added that improvements could be made within the EU, for example through the community preferences in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome. According to Senator Bizet, the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have prevailed over the EU’s community preference rules.

He went on to talk about the European single market, which makes the EU the largest global economic marketplace. He said that the EU is a confederation of nation-states, unlike Canada or the United States, and that trade is four times higher within the United States than among the Member States of the European market. He then spoke in favour of globalization, while acknowledging that it creates both winners and losers, and he said that Member States must get more involved to compensate for those who lose out under CETA.

In addition, he said that the WTO has 164 member countries and that, although there are average tariff barriers, tariff peaks still exist. He believes some CETA provisions were copied from the WTO.

With respect to the ratification of CETA by the EU Member States, Mr. Bizet noted that, because the European Parliament approved CETA on 15 February 2017, the Agreement will be provisionally applied. This means that almost the entire agreement will come into force and that national parliaments will vote on a just small part of the Agreement, amounting to about 5% of the Agreement.

He concluded by saying that harmonizing standards is not as big a challenge for large companies because they have lawyers to support them. However, this is not generally the case for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which he says will also be very affected by CETA.

2. Impact of the Agreement on the Canadian Agricultural and Agri-Food Sector   

First, Mr. Rayes mentioned that Canada’s two main political parties support CETA and that they won 70% of the votes in the last federal election. He added that Canadians are generally in favour of the Agreement and that Canadian provinces and territories do not have to approve it in their legislatures for Canada to implement it. However, the provinces and territories are required to amend their laws, regulations and policies for its implementation.

He went on to say that he cannot speak on behalf of multinationals since there are not any in his constituency but that SMEs are pleased with the Agreement and that they create many jobs.

He then discussed some of the fears held by Europeans, such as the invasion by U.S. companies of the European market. In this regard, he noted that U.S. companies must comply with Canadian rules in order to operate in Canada.

He explained that the agriculture and agri-food sector is an important part of Canada’s economy. In 2014, it generated $108.1 billion in revenues, accounting for 6.6% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP). Furthermore, the sector provided one in every eight jobs in Canada in 2014, employing over 2.3 million people.[22]

In 2014, Canada was the fifth-largest exporter of agricultural and agri-food products in the world (behind the EU, the U.S., Brazil and China), with $51.5 billion in exports, accounting for 3.6% of global exports. In terms of agricultural and agri-food imports, Canada was the sixth-largest importer (behind the EU, the U.S., China, Japan and Russia) with nearly $40 billion in imports, accounting for 2.9% of the total value of global imports.[23]

He then talked about agriculture and agri-food trade between Canada and the EU, and between Canada and France, and some of the possible impacts of CETA on Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector.

a. Agriculture and Agri-Food Trade

(i) Between Canada and the European Union

Mr. Rayes noted that the EU is Canada’s second-largest trading partner, after the United States, and the EU’s 500 million consumers make it a major market for Canadian businesses.[24] Two way trade between Canada and the EU in the agriculture and agri-food sector totalled $8 billion in 2015. Canada’s trade deficit with the EU for agriculture and agri-food products was $2.3 billion in 2015.

He distributed tables 2 and 3 showing the top five Canadian agriculture and agri-food products exported to the EU and the top five Canadian agriculture and agri-food products imported from the EU, respectively. He highlighted that Canada exports mainly primary agriculture products to the EU, and imports primarily value-added agriculture products.

(ii) Between Canada and France

Two-way agriculture and agri-food trade between Canada and France amounted to $1.2 billion in 2015. Canada’s trade deficit with France for agriculture and agri-food products was close to $680 million in 2015. However, this trade deficit has decreased by 11.5% from 2013 to 2015.

He presented tables 4 and 5 showing the top five Canadian agriculture and agri-food products exported to France and the top five Canadian agriculture and agri-food products imported from France. He highlighted that in 2015, the top two Canadian exports to France were primary agriculture products, while the top Canadian imports from France were alcoholic beverages and cheeses.

b. Potential Impact of the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement on the Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector

He explained that under CETA, 97% of Canadian agriculture and agri-food exports to the EU will be fully liberalized. Similarly, 95% of EU agriculture and agri-food exports to Canada will be fully liberalized, of a total value of 2.2 billion euros annually.[25]

According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada:

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance estimated in 2013 that the value of Canadian agri-food exports to the EU could increase by $1.5 billion a year, with $600 million for the beef industry, $400 million for the pork industry, $100 million in grain and oilseed products, $100 million in sugar-containing products and $300 million in processed products, such as fruits and vegetables and biofuels.[27]

(i) Beef Industry

Annual production in the beef industry will increase by 500,000 head of cattle to generate additional export revenues of $600 million a year.

(ii) Pork Industry

Europeans consume nearly 20 million tonnes of pork each year, which is almost 30 times Canadian consumption.[28] CETA will give the Canadian pork industry the opportunity to expand its exports to the European market, as Canada will have more than 80,000 tonnes of duty-free access. This will be worth about $400 million per year to Canadian farmers.[29]

(iii) Grain and Canadian Cereal Preparations Industry

Canada exports large quantities of cereals and cereal preparations, such as pastas, breads and waffles, to the EU.[30]

Canada already has a WTO tariff rate quota for common wheat. Under CETA, this quota will increase to 100,000 tonnes and will be valid only for the tariff transition period. The Grain Growers of Canada estimate that this tariff rate quota increase is worth about $20 million a year. In addition, because the EU is currently experiencing a shortage of grain for animal feed and biofuel production, CETA includes significant opportunities for the canola industry.

(iv) Wine Industry

Under CETA, duty on Canadian wines that currently range from 18.5¢ to 45¢ per litre will be eliminated. According to the Canadian Vintners Association, the Canadian wine industry will save $200,000 a year as a result of this measure. What is more, import duties will be eliminated on all winemaking equipment entering Canada, including wine casks, harvesters and bottles. This will reduce the cost of buying equipment from Europe.[31]

(v) Dairy Industry

Nevertheless, CETA could have a negative impact on some sectors, such as the dairy industry, which is the only sector under supply management[32] that is affected by CETA. Canadian dairy farmers are concerned that they may suffer significant economic losses if more European cheeses are imported to Canada when CETA comes into force.[33]

The dairy industry estimated that CETA would result in annual losses of about $300 million. However, cheese consumption in Canada is growing by 6,000 to 8,000 tonnes a year, which was not taken into account in this estimate. Estimates show that, by the time CETA is fully implemented, Canadian cheese consumption will have increased by more than 17,700 tonnes.[34]

CETA provides clarification about the EU’s protected geographic indications[35] for agriculture and agri food products. As a result, five Canadian cheeses exported to Europe (Asiago, Gorgonzola, Feta, Fontina and Munster), will have to be accompanied by indications such as “style,” “type,” “kind,” or “imitation.”[36]

The EU will also liberalize all its dairy tariff lines as soon as CETA enters into force. However, this will likely have a nearly insignificant impact, “given that the EU imports extremely low quantities of these products from Canada (0.1% of agricultural imports from Canada, based on the 2012–2013 average).”[37]

He concluded by saying that Canadian parliamentarians actively participated in the study of CETA’s impacts on the agricultural sector through the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which reported on the matter in December 2014. The Agreement builds on the shared history and values of Canada and the European Union, reaffirming their commitment to our mutual prosperity through continued cooperation. It also marks the beginning of a new, dynamic chapter in Canada’s relationship with the European Union. Finally, he expressed confidence that the parties involved in the Agreement would find a way to resolve conflicts.

3. Discussion Among Delegates   

After the presentations by Senator Collombat, Senator Bizet and Mr. Rayes, the delegates discussed the subject. Mr. Ayoub pointed out that globalization is a phenomenon that has existed for a very long time, since, ultimately, consumers want to pay as little as possible for their goods and services. He added that fear of a free trade policy among nations cannot work in the long run.

MP François Choquette said that the majority of Canadians support CETA, although there are some disputes between investor countries and the supply management industry. He added that some say the Agreement will have a harmful impact on drugs. In this regard, Guillaume Cliche, Economic Affairs Counsellor at the Canadian Embassy in France, said that patent protection and patent terms will be strengthened in Canada. He added that concerns have been raised by some Canadian provinces as a result of rising drug costs associated with extended patent terms for brand-name drugs.

Finally, Senator Collombat said he understood that Canadians were in favour of the Agreement. He stressed, however, that the economic crisis of 2008 was, in his opinion, a result of financial globalization, that it impoverished a large part of the middle class, and that this impoverishment continues to this day. He ended by saying that this type of crisis is bound to repeat itself.

B. Discussions   

The delegates met with the Head of the Trade Policy, Strategy and Coordination Office; senior staff from the office of the Minister of Agriculture, Agri-Food and Forestry; and representatives of the General Directorate for the Economic and Environmental Performance of Enterprises, to discuss CETA and its impact on the agriculture and agri-food industry.

1. Discussion with the Head of the Trade Policy, Strategy and Coordination Office   

On 12 April 2017, delegates met with Charles-Henri Weymuller, Head of the Trade Policy, Strategy and Coordination Office, General Directorate of the Treasury, Ministry for the Economy and Finance, since October 2015, and his colleagues.

Ms. Coutelle began by introducing the CFIA and the delegates, as well as representatives of the Trade Policy, Strategy and Coordination Office. She then mentioned some concerns regarding CETA, including the presence of hormone-treated beef on the European market and the weakening of the Canadian cheese industry.

Mr. Weymuller said that the French government supports the Agreement, as does Emmanuel Macron. As to the other candidates in the presidential election, he said that François Fillon had not commented on the subject while Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Benoît Hamon have said they were against CETA.

He went on to explain that the General Directorate of the Treasury at the Ministry for the Economy and Finance plays a role in France’s foreign policy and coordinates with other ministries. At the European level, the French General Secretariat for European Affairs, a dedicated office under the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for coordination between ministries on European affairs. The secretariat is responsible for ensuring the unity and consistency of French policies within the EU and the OECD. It also works with the Permanent Representation of France to the EU, which defends France’s positions in community negotiations and within institutions.

He then talked about the negotiation of trade treaties by distinguishing between two types of agreements: offensive agreements, which aim to open up markets so that both sides win, and defensive agreements, which aim to limit unfair competition. He went on to say that the progressive and very ambitious CETA is a new-generation agreement, for example, because of the significant decrease in tariffs and the adoption of standards. In this regard, he said that France is no longer inclined to open up its markets without labour or environmental standards.

Mr. Weymuller explained the history of CETA, which first arose at the 2007 bilateral summit between Canada and the EU and that the European Council tasked the European Commission with its negotiation. The official launch of the CETA negotiations was announced during the Canada–EU Summit on 6 May 2009, and on 18 October 2013, the two sides announced that they had reached an agreement in principle on CETA. A technical summary of the negotiations (in other words, an agreement in principle) was tabled in the House of Commons on 29 October 2013. On 29 February, Canada and the EU announced that the legal review of the English text of CETA had been completed.

Mr. Weymuller continued by saying that, at the end of negotiations, there was last-minute wrangling over the issue of investment protection, which led to changes, including stricter wording of the right of all levels of government to regulate in the area of investment protection. He added that 5% of CETA’s provisions fall under joint jurisdiction, meaning that they fall under the jurisdiction of both the Member States and the EU. As a result, national parliaments will have to ratify CETA. He said that all Member States had signed the Agreement and explained how it would be ratified. The Council of the EU approved CETA in October 2016 then referred it to the European Parliament. On 24 January 2017, the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee approved CETA,[38] which was ratified by the European Parliament on 15 February 2017.[39] He summed up by saying that the ball was now in Canada’s court. In this regard, Senator Ngo pointed out that Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures, was before the Senate.[40]

Mr. Weymuller added that, once Canada ratifies the Agreement, it will be applied on a provisional basis and 95% of the measures will come into force. He pointed out that the remaining 5% is related to sensitive subjects like investments and that these measures will enter into force once the Agreement has been ratified by all the national parliaments.

In response to questions from delegates, Mr. Weymuller explained that CETA was negotiated within the framework of the WTO and must therefore be compatible with WTO rules. He added that the Agreement must allow for fair competition between markets. He said that the Agreement would be easy to implement, as it is only a matter of amending Canada’s and the EU’s tariff rates.

Concerning the agricultural and agri-food sector, he explained that the EU will eliminate 92.2% of its agricultural tariffs when the Agreement enters into force, which will rise to 93.8% seven years later. However, sensitive products, such as chicken and turkey meat and eggs and egg products (eggs with shells and membranes removed) were excluded from tariff reductions. Under CETA, the EU will provide Canada with an annual tariff-free quota for 45,838 tonnes of beef (expressed in carcass weight equivalent[41]), including 30,838 tonnes of fresh beef, in addition to the 4,162 tonnes already granted as compensation for the hormones dispute. These two quotas account for approximately 0.6% of total beef consumption by EU Member States.

Lastly, delegates thanked Mr. Weymuller and his staff for taking the time to talk to them about CETA and its impact on the agriculture and agri-food sector.

2. Discussion with Senior Staff from the Office Of the Minister Of Agriculture, Agri-Food And Forestry, and Representatives of the General Directorate for the Economic and Environmental Performance of Enterprises    

On 13 April 2017, the delegates met with Pierre Marie, an advisor on European and international affairs and equine matters to Stéphane Le Foll, Minister of Agriculture, Agri-Food and Forestry, and his colleagues. They also met with representatives of the General Directorate for the Economic and Environmental Performance of Enterprises.

After Ms. Coutelle introduced the CFIA and the delegates, Mr. Marie explained the “4 per 1000” initiative, which was launched by France and which brings together public and private stakeholders to develop practical programs for carbon sequestration in soil and methods to promote it based on scientific evidence. The aim of the initiative is to “demonstrate that agriculture, and agricultural soils in particular, can play a crucial role where food security and climate change are concerned.”[42] The goal of the initiative is to promote a transition towards a productive agriculture based on sustainable soil management. The 4 per 1,000 refers to the annual growth rate of the soil carbon stock that would make it possible to stop the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Mr. Rayes said he was very interested in this initiative and pointed out that farmers are sensitive to environmental concerns.

Mr. Marie then spoke about CETA, noting that the EU elements of the Agreement will be applied provisionally and that the other elements will enter into force after the national parliaments ratify the Agreement. He added that, because of the sensitivity of the agricultural sector, both France and Canada wanted to protect certain products in this sector. The EU will therefore keep tariffs on 6.2% of sensitive agricultural products. He also said that the rules of origin had sparked discussions in France.

In addition, Mr. Marie pointed out that the Agreement is with Canada, not the United States, because many people refer to CETA as the little brother of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was established in 2006 with the entry into force of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, negotiated by four countries: Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. Since 2006, eight other countries have joined the negotiations to conclude a free trade agreement with the four countries of the current agreement: the United States, Australia, Peru and Vietnam in 2008, Malaysia in 2010, Canada and Mexico in 2012, and Japan in 2013. He went on to say that the spectre of the United States has loomed around CETA.

According to Mr. Marie, both Canada and the EU made concessions to reach an agreement, notably by setting tariff-rate quotas and including 140 geographical indications, including 40 in France, in the Agreement. He explained that geographical indications are in some ways the intellectual property of a product, such as champagne or Gruyère cheese. There are some 3,000 geographical indications in Europe. He added that an important aspect of the Agreement for France was that Canada recognized geographical indications.

Mr. Marie highlighted the work of the Canadian Embassy in France, which worked hard to dismiss false rumours about CETA. He went on to say that the WTO should have forged a global agreement and that to compensate, the EU has negotiated numerous bilateral agreements.

In response to a question from a delegate about Brexit, Mr. Marie noted that the United Kingdom is France’s third-largest trading partner and he expressed doubt that the country could negotiate its exit from the EU in two years.

In addition, Mr. Marie addressed a comment by a delegate that French producers are facing a crisis. In his view, French livestock producers are concerned about the tariff rate quotas Canada was granted for beef and pork because not all countries raise livestock for consumption, unlike milk. He noted that communication on the Agreement were not straightforward, which also raised concern among agricultural producers. However, he explained that the dairy sector is doing better and that other markets have opened for pork.

Regarding the consumption of beef in France, Mr. Marie told a delegate that beef consumption was falling due to animal welfare concerns and an increase in the number of people who follow a vegetarian diet.

Finally, delegates thanked senior staff from the office of the Minister of Agriculture, Agri-Food and Forestry and representatives of the General Directorate for the Economic and Environmental Performance of Enterprises for generously hosting them.

FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

A. Background   

On 11 April 2017, Canadian delegates were at Parc Chanot in Marseille to attend the public meeting of candidate François Fillon, leader of the “Les Républicains” political party. Prior to Mr. Fillon’s speech, which touched on some policies of his opponents, several local politicians spoke, including Jean‑Claude Gaudin, Mayor of Marseille, Senator for Bouches‑du-Rhône and Vice-President of the French Senate. Approximately 3,000 people attended the event.

On 14 April 2017, Canadian delegates visited the headquarters of candidate Emmanuel Macron’s “En Marche!” movement in the 15^th arrondissement of Paris. His election headquarters employed about 50 permanent staff and 100 volunteers. Mr. Macron went on to be elected the eighth president of the Fifth Republic on 7 May 2017.

Finally, the Canadian Embassy in France organized a meeting with political analysts for Canadian delegates to discuss the French election.

As the annual meeting was held during the French presidential election campaign, Canadian delegates had the opportunity to attend the town halls of two of the top five candidates and to visit the headquarters of a third candidate.

On 9 April 2017, several Canadian delegates attended the public meeting of candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the political party, “La France insoumise,” held on rue Canebière near Marseille’s old port. In his speech, Mr. Mélenchon set out the key planks of his election platform. He talked about immigration while invoking peace and announced his intention to take France out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Between 40,000 and 70,000 people attended the rally.

B. Meeting on the French Election with Political Analysts

On 12 April 2017, Canadian delegates were welcomed to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador to France, His Excellency Lawrence Cannon, for a meeting with Bruno Cautrès, a researcher at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique and the Centre de recherches politiques de Sciences Po, and Philippe Moreau Defarges, political scientist and researcher at the Institut français des relations internationales and lecturer at the l’Université Paris-II Panthéon-Assas and the Institut d’études politiques de Paris.

Mr. Berthiaume opened the discussion by explaining the role of the CFIA and introducing the Canadian delegates. He then asked the two political analysts to describe the 2017 French presidential election.

Mr. Cautrès described the campaign and the presidential election as crazy and said that many people called it the “crazydential election” because of its many twists and turns. He said these included outgoing President François Hollande’s decision not to run, even though he had given mixed signals on his intentions. This decision forced his party, the Socialist Party, to hold primaries in order to find a new leader. According to Mr. Cautrès, the left found itself in power in a moment of uncertainty surrounding the party.

As to the right, Mr. Cautrès described Mr. Fillon’s platform as radical, the same way the candidate himself describes it. He then said that the revelations by satirical newspaper Le Canard enchaîné concerning Mr. Fillon and the fictitious jobs he had given his wife and two children using public funds had hit him hard. According to Mr. Cautrès, Mr. Fillon’s election campaign was dominated by the scandal and he never really had the opportunity to showcase his platform. He went on to say that the National Front party offered conflicting messages, since it wants to close economic and social borders while claiming that the French social welfare system is a good thing.

According to Mr. Cautrès, there has rarely been so much uncertainty before the first round of a presidential election. He gave three reasons for this uncertainty:

• low voter turnout; online opinion surveys believe that abstentions will play a decisive role in the election;
• the indecision and volatility of some voters, for example those supporting Benoît Hamon and Jean‑Luc Mélenchon; and
• the percentage of right-wing voters who will not accept losing.

He added that it is unbelievable for Emmanuel Macron to have become the favourite when he was an unknown 12 to 18 months ago. Mr. Cautrès believes voters could lean toward Le Pen because, although the two previous presidents were different, France is still grappling with some of the same problems and there is a cleavage between the left and the right.

Mr. Moreau Defarges explained that since 1950, France has had issues with Europe and that signs of worsening elections have been visible for several years. He was surprised by three candidates running for president, namely Nathalie Arthaud of Lutte Ouvrière, François Asselineau of Union populaire républicaine and Jacques Cheminade of Solidarité et progrès.

In response to a question from Mr. Cannon regarding leadership and pragmatism in France, Mr. Moreau Defarges said that the French election campaign lacked a natural leader. Mr. Cautrès pointed out that public finances never came up in the campaign, yet outgoing President François Hollande was the first to tell his party to reduce the deficit.

In addition, in response to delegates, Mr. Cautrès said that France has many “youths” and that those without a diploma tend to vote for Marine Le Pen. He added that young people tend to vote less and that some will vote once but not again. On the parallels that some people draw between the Canadian Prime Minister and Emmanuel Macron, he agreed that they have a number of things in common, including their pragmatic side. He believes France has to innovate more and reform its transportation system. He also said that the theme of the 2017 elections was newness, in part because several well-known members were not standing for re-election. According to him, no matter the results, the day after the election will see big changes.

Mr. Cautrès mentioned that social media are playing a role in the election campaign. He mentioned the hologram Jean-Luc Mélenchon used to hold two simultaneous public meetings in two different cities on 5 February 2017. Mr. Cautrès said that, even though Mr. Mélenchon is the oldest candidate, he is the one who most interests young people.

Mr. Moreau Defarges predicted that Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen would face off in the second round of the presidential election. Mr. Cautrès said he could not rule out any scenario but added that Emmanuel Macron would be good for the EU. He said it would be impossible for Benoît Hamon to win the election and that Marine Le Pen could win if the following three conditions were met: very strong results for the National Front in the first round, high voter abstention, and a face-off between Marine Le Pen and François Fillon in the second round.

In conclusion, delegates greatly appreciated meeting with the analysts and expressed their thanks for the discussion. They also thanked the ambassador and his team for organizing the activity.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

A. Background

During their visit to Marseille and Paris, the delegates also took the opportunity to visit some cultural and tourist attractions. They visited the Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilizations, the Panier de Marseille neighbourhood, Ratonneau Island, which is in the Friuli Islands archipelago, and the Louvre Museum. They also had the honour of meeting the Mayor of Marseille and dining at the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador to France.

B. Site Visits and Meetings

1. Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilizations

Keeping with the theme of immigration, on 10 April 2017, the delegates visited the Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilizations to better understand the history
of immigration in this region.

This national museum, which is supported by the Ministry of Culture and Communications and holds a million works of art and traditional objects, opened in June 2013 as part of Marseille’s year as the European Capital of Culture for 2013. Located on the site of an old fort, Fort Saint-Jean, it is the first national museum dedicated to Mediterranean civilizations for the 21^st century and is spread over three sites:

• The J4, a new building built on the former J4 pier, includes two exhibitions: the Galerie de la Méditerranée highlighting the region’s civilizations and temporary exhibitions;
• Fort Saint-Jean, an historic building dating from the 12^th century that has been restored and that is connected to the J4 by a footbridge offering panoramic views over the sea;
• The Centre for Conservation and Resources, as its name suggests, stores the museum’s collections and has several spaces aimed at welcoming the public, including accessible storage facilities, documentation and consultation spaces and temporary exhibitions.

A guide led the delegates through the Galerie de la Méditerranée, the museum’s permanent collection, which presents the history of Mediterranean societies under the following four themes: agriculture, monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), citizenship and great discoveries.

At the end of the visit, the delegates warmly thanked the guide for explaining the Mediterranean’s history and the many objects on display.

2. Marseille’s Le Panier Neighbourhood

On 11 April 2017, the delegates visited some of Marseille’s neighbourhoods with tour guide Corinne Semercyian.

Ms. Semercyian first explained the origin of the Intercontinental Hotel in Marseille, which was built in 1188 as a hospital and orphanage. It later became the Hôtel-Dieu in 1753 and was rebuilt by Napoleon III in the mid-1800s. It was a hospital until 2006, when it closed its doors. The City of Marseille acquired it in 2007 and the hotel officially opened in 2013. According to Ms. Semercyian, around 100 million euros was invested to transform the hospital into a luxury hotel.

She then talked about the history of the City of Marseille, which is the oldest city in France and which was founded by Greek sailors in 600 BC. Marseille, originally known as Massalia, was first and foremost a port city. It was the Greeks who brought vines and olive trees to Marseille. She said that greater Marseille has a population of 1.1 million people and covers three times the area of Paris. According to her, the Marseille port is an economic engine for the region and a heritage site with tourist attractions.

She pointed out the Notre-Dame de la Garde Basilica, which faces the Intercontinental Hotel and sits atop the hill called “Colline de la Garde.” The people of Marseille call the basilica the Bonne mère (“Good Mother”) because it watches over them as well as over sailors and fishermen.

The delegates then visited Le Panier, a neighbourhood behind city hall. This district is the historic heart of Marseille and its name comes from a sign on a 17^th century inn that said “Le Logis du Panier.” Ms. Semercyian explained that part of the district was demolished during the winter of 1943 under the orders of German authorities, who claimed it housed resistance fighters. In addition, 50,000 people from Marseille were sent to concentration camps. She added that during the 19^th century, Marseille welcomed successive waves of immigration, beginning with the Italians, then the Algerians and then the Armenians. Corsicans also came to work in Marseille. According to Ms. Semercyian, the city now has 70 consulates. The City of Marseille, with the help of the European Commission, has been rebuilding the neighbourhood since 1983.

Finally, the delegates visited the Vieille Charité, a former asylum in the Baroque style located in Le Panier. Ms. Semercyian said that the building was built between 1671 and 1745 to serve as a poorhouse. It was designed by Pierre Puget, who was from the neighbourhood and who was the architect of King Louis XIV. Today, the building houses cultural institutions.

3. Ratonneau Island

Also on 11 April 2017, the delegates went by boat with Ms. Semercyian to visit Ratonneau Island, one of the four islands of the Frioul archipelago. The islands have an area of 200 hectares and are located just off Marseille, of which they form a part. Ms. Semercyian explained that the name “Frioul” comes from a Latin term meaning passage, evoking the natural passage between the islands.

Ms. Semercyian said that the archipelago was a military site for the Ministry of Defence until the 1970s. In 1974, the Mayor of Marseille, Gaston Defferre, bought the islands and decided to make it a new district of Marseille capable of accommodating 1,500 people and housing a port. According to Ms. Semercyian, the archipelago now has 150 residents.

She then explained the geological formation that led to the inlets that are found on Ratonneau Island and near Marseille. She then talked about the port of Marseille, mentioning that it is the largest in France and the second largest in the Mediterranean after the port of Algiers.

Lastly, by way of thanks, the delegates invited Ms. Semercyian to have lunch with them and took the opportunity to continue their discussions.

4. The Louvre

On 13 April 2017, the delegates met with Serge Leduc, Director of Public Access and Monitoring, and Nicolas Feau, advisor to the CEO of the Louvre in Paris, on museum security. This meeting was a follow-up to the security themes that were discussed at the CFIA’s two previous annual meetings, namely the 43^rd meeting in Paris and in Pas-de-Calais in 2015, and the 44^th meeting in British Columbia in 2016.

The Louvre, a former royal palace, is the most visited museum in the world, with close to 10 million visitors in 2012. It was built in 1793 as a universal museum. Its collections are “among the finest in the world” and “span several thousands of years and a territory that extends from America to the confines of Asia. Divided among eight departments, these collections feature works admired throughout the globe, including the Mona Lisa, the Winged Victory of Samothrace, and the Venus de Milo.”[43]

On 3 February 2017, a 29-year-old Egyptian who was unknown to French intelligence services injured soldiers at the entrance to the Carrousel du Louvre when he attacked them with two machetes. He had apparently entered the country on a visa from Dubai on 26 January 2017.[44]

After visiting some of the museum’s most popular galleries, delegates discussed the museum’s security. Mr. Leduc explained that the Louvre must apply the measures developed by the French government and that each ministry, including the Ministry of Culture and Communications responsible for the museum, has senior officials responsible for defence and security. These senior officials therefore provide security instructions. As a result of the February 2017 attack at the Louvre, additional security measures were taken, such as moving queues away from traffic and installing concrete barriers to stop vehicles from entering the area.

Mr. Leduc also explained that the museum had to develop a shelter plan in case of an attack outside the museum as well as an evacuation plan in case of an attack inside. A dozen shelter sites were identified to accommodate 5,000 people, since the museum can hold up to 5,000 visitors at once, in addition to its 250 employees. These sites must have sanitary spaces and a water supply, reinforced mechanized doors, hardwired communication lines like a telephone and a protected exit route.

Regarding the attack of 3 February 2017, Mr. Leduc said that at the time of the attack there were nearly 1,400 visitors in the museum. According to him, everyone quickly and calmly took shelter in the secure areas. The attacker was taken down by the soldiers he had attacked with two machetes. He added that the assailant found himself in front of three soldiers only by accident and that the injured soldier survived.

In response to a question from a delegate, Mr. Leduc and Mr. Feau said that the museum had not changed its security measures following the attack because the area of the attack just before the commercial zone is not within the Louvre’s jurisdiction. He added, however, that the museum has the ability to detect handguns, such as pistols.

In addition, Mr. Leduc explained that the French government had issued new security instructions to the heads of its institutions since November 2015. He went on to say that, because of the attacks, it was the first time since the Second World War that there have been so many deaths in France and that the French are in a state of shock because of all the violence.

In response to another question by a delegate, Mr. Leduc and Mr. Feau said that the museum did not provide any counselling to its employees following the February 2017 attack because they were not directly confronted with or involved in the attack. However, they said that the museum has two doctors and a psychologist for its employees.

In terms of securing the art, Mr. Leduc said that the 14 km of galleries open to the public are monitored by 430 to 440 security guards each day. In addition to security, these officers are trained to help visitors find their group if they become lost. The works of art have shock and movement detectors and six rounds an hour are done day and night to ensure no art is missing. With regard to the artworks in the museum’s reserve collection, the delegates were surprised to learn that their presence is checked only every 10 years.

Lastly, the delegates thanked Mr. Leduc and Mr. Feau for the tour of the galleries and their explanations of visitor and artwork security at the Louvre.

5. Meeting with the Mayor of Marseille

On 10 April 2017, delegates were greeted at the Marseille City Hall and met with Jean-Claude Gaudin, Mayor of Marseille, Senator of Bouches-du-Rhône and Vice-President of the Senate, and Jean Roatta, Deputy Mayor, Delegate for International Relations and Euro-Mediterranean Cooperation and Metropolitan Councillor.

After the Canadian and French delegates introduced themselves, Mr. Gaudin spoke about the ties between Marseille and Canada and said he was delighted to host the delegates and welcomed them to his city. He said he had previously hosted the Speaker of the House of Commons, Geoff Regan, and the Speaker of the National Assembly of Quebec, Jacques Chagnon. He added that he had visited Montreal and that he had enjoyed the trip. He said he had invited the Mayor of Montréal, Denis Coderre, to participate in the celebrations of the French national holiday on 14 July 2017. In addition, Mr. Roatta mentioned that he would be in Montréal on 20–22 June 2017 to attend the meeting of the International Association of French-speaking Mayors. He went on to say that Marseille hosts many delegations and that the city is about to sign a partnership with Miami, Florida.

Ms. Coutelle explained the CFIA’s role, which aims, among other things, to allow French and Canadian parliamentarians to share views on their country’s public policies. She added that part of the CFIA’s 45th annual meeting is taking place in Marseille in order to study immigration and the integration of immigrants.

The delegates learned that Marseille has been around for 26 centuries. Mr. Gaudin explained that City Hall took 20 years to build, from 1653 to 1673, and was designed by an Italian architect based on plans by Mathieu Portal and Gaspard Puget, the brother of Pierre Puget. He went on to say that King Louis XIV had two forts, Fort Saint-Jean and Fort Saint-Nicolas, built at the entrance of the port of Marseille, which were not previously open to the public.

On the question of the integration of immigrants, Mr. Gaudin explained that Marseille was a cosmopolitan city and historic home of immigrant populations. It now comprises 300,000 people of the Muslim faith, 80,000 people of the Jewish faith, 80,000 people of Armenian origin and 70,000 people of Corsican origin. He went on to say that many Marseille families face economic hardship and that 53,000 children have to use meal vouchers. According to him, Marseille is a port first and foremost. He had tried to transform the city, but it was very hard. However, he said that he has developed tourism, which has led to less unemployment, and that some two million cruise passengers visit Marseille each year.

In response to a question from a delegate about the city’s reputation, Mr. Gaudin explained that after World War II the city was quickly rebuilt and some buildings have deteriorated over the years. He added that there are many immigrants in the city and that some residents oppose immigration. Moreover, because of the port, there is a large drug and arms trafficking network in the city, which leads to people settling scores. To address these challenges, Mr. Gaudin said that the local police is armed.

Mr. Gaudin said that with the coming into force in 2017 of the Law of 14 February 2014, which prohibits cumulative mandates (for example, a parliamentarian cannot also be a mayor or deputy mayor), he has decided to leave the Senate after 28 years and remain Mayor of Marseille. He thanked the delegates for their visit and said he was pleased to meet them.

Lastly, Mr. Paradis, on behalf of all the delegates, thanked Mr. Gaudin and Mr. Roatta for the welcome and the discussions.

6. Dinner at the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador to France

On 12 April 2017, delegates were received by His Excellency Lawrence Cannon, Canada’s Ambassador to France, at his official residence for dinner. To mark the end of a chapter in the CFIA’s history with the retirement of Ms. Coutelle, former French members of the CFIA were also invited.

Mr. Cannon gave a very warm welcome to past and present CFIA members, noting that they were key actors in the bilateral relationship and that the CFIA’s activities helped strengthen this relationship. He thanked all the delegates for their hard work building ties between Canada and France and also thanked CFIA staff.

Ms. Coutelle praised her predecessors, pointing out that their work ensured the CFIA’s continuity. She mentioned there were new members on the Canadian side following the most recent Canadian federal election and that they had attended two public meetings with two French presidential candidates. She thanked the embassy staff for organizing these meetings. She said that the two themes of the annual meeting led to interesting discussions: the integration of immigrants and the impact of CETA on the agriculture and agri-food sector. She also spoke about the importance of the long-standing friendship between Canada and France and thanked the embassy for its welcome. Lastly, she gave all the guests a document entitled Bilan de l’activité de l’AICF sous la XIVe législature, and thanked both parliaments for their support.

Mr. Paradis spoke next and warmly thanked the ambassador for his hospitality. He said CFIA members greatly appreciated his willingness to continue friendly meetings with the Canadian Embassy in France. He highlighted the exceptional work and commitment to the CFIA of Ms. Coutelle, who will be retiring this year. He said he enjoyed working with her and was very grateful for her dedication to strengthening collaboration between Canada and France through her contribution to the CFIA. He went on to say that she would always be welcome in Canada. Lastly, he paid tribute to the former members of the CFIA.

CONCLUSION

The 45th annual meeting of the CFIA was, as usual, a great success. The working meetings gave delegates an opportunity to exchange views and learn more about the Canadian and French perspectives on the themes studied. They were also able to deepen their understanding and appreciation of the issues and challenges by meeting with experts in the areas studied during the site visits and many discussions. However, the delegates agreed that a good deal of work remains to be done in Canada and in France to integrate immigrants and that they will continue their work in this regard as part of the CFIA.

The delegates took the opportunity to mark Ms. Coutelle’s retirement. Senator Lepage said this was the end of an era and thanked Ms. Coutelle for helping advance the CFIA. Senator Tardif also thanked Ms. Coutelle. She said she had the privilege of working with her for over a decade, including five as vice-chair. She said she has very fond memories of this time. She said Ms. Coutelle is totally dedicated to the CFIA’s success and to understanding not only Canada but also the Canadian Francophonie from coast to coast. She thanked her for putting together a summary of the CFIA’s recent activities and concluded by saying that Ms. Coutelle had strengthened the relationship between Canada and France while skillfully leading the CFIA.

Lastly, both delegations thanked the officials of the Canadian and French parliaments for their support of the CFIA’s activities and praised their professionalism and excellent work.

Respectfully submitted,

Hon. Denis Paradis, P.C., M.P.
Chair, Canada-France Interparliamentary Associaiton