Bill C-13 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to make related amendments to another Act

This enactment enables Canada to implement the Agreement on Trade Facilitation, which was done at Geneva by members of the World Trade Organization, including Canada, on November 27, 2014, as an amendment to Annex 1A of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
It amends the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement on Trade Facilitation.
It also makes related amendments to another Act.

[Shannon Coombs]

With that proposed amendment, we are looking to ensure predictability in the Canadian marketplace while meeting our trade obligations under WTO.

CCSPA is proposing amendments for two of the acts under discussion, the Pest Control Products Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We showed the clerk our proposed amendments in our submission, but we'd now like to explain to you our supporting rationales.

CCSPA member companies who manufacture domestic pest control products are regulated under the Pest Control Products Act. Our final products are designed for consumers, so they are personal insect repellents, ant traps, and rodenticides. Our ingredients, the end use, the packaging, the label, advertising, and reporting of those uses are all regulated, and they meet the rigorous requirements of the Pest Control Products Act and its regulations to ensure safety, value, and merit—the pillars of the act.

The amendments being proposed in the bill are meant to facilitate trade and goods in transit through Canada, but the amendment to define the definition of the pest control product label goes well beyond that as it applies to all activities under the act, so it impacts our day-to-day business here in Canada.

In Bill C-13 the definition of label no longer refers to the act or regulations, but instead uses a more generic language to include:

any written, printed or graphic matter that is or is to be applied or attached to or included in, that belongs to or is to belong to, or that accompanies or is to accompany, a pest control product or a package.

It's quite long.

In our opinion, the proposed new definition lacks clarity because of the inclusion of the words “belongs to or is to belong to”, and these words are broad and without clear meaning. Nothing that we have found helps to conclusively answer the question of whether the label includes marketing material not attached or physically proximate to the products such as a QR code or websites. There is nothing to suggest that it is not, and this is our concern.

We have proposed a definition of label that removes the ambiguity of “belongs to or is to belong to” and included the word “prescribed” in reference to the requirements of the act and regulation in the original definition. We believe this change will still allow Canada to meet our trade obligations while, at the same time, not expanding the scope of the definition of pest control product label.

I would now like to shift our focus to the proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. CCSPA and member companies provide products that improve the lives of Canadians, and CEPA governs our ingredients, new and existing. Our ingredients and also the end use of the product—ant traps, disinfectants, and labelling—are all regulated under appropriate legislation. This is both for consumer use and the workplace.

In our opinion, the proposed CEPA subsection 118(1.1) is not necessary as it could cause some confusion by implying that illegal products with a final destination to Canada may be exempted from Canadian law.

The stated goal of Global Affairs is to be able to specify regulations allowing the import for export of in-transit products not saleable in Canada, as required under two new trade requirements. However, this ability is already in place in CEPA, division 1 of part 7.

The only regulation under the nutrient section of CEPA right now is the one limiting phosphorous in cleaning products, which is a regulation that was based on our industry-led initiative in 2008 to reduce phosphorous in household automatic dishwasher detergent to a maximum of 0.5% by weight.

To meet our trade obligations, the nutrient regulations under section 117 can be amended to accommodate import for export of in-transit products. Environment and Climate Change Canada have confirmed with the CCSPA that such a regulatory amendment would be necessary in any case. In our opinion, the focus should be on amending regulations, not on creating an unnecessary and confusing amendment to CEPA.

We again would like to reiterate our support for the intent of the WTO's facilitation agreement and Canada's participation in that. We believe that, with the amendments we are proposing, unintended consequences for those who deal with these pieces of legislation day to day will be avoided.

Thank you for your time today. I'd be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of Parliament. It's a pleasure to be here today to provide our perspective to the committee's review of Bill C-13.

My name is Shannon Coombs and I'm the president of the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association. For 18 years I've proudly represented the many accomplishments of our proactive and responsible industry.

Today, I provided the clerk with a copy of our one-pager “Imagine Life Without Us?”, which illustrates the many types of products that CCSPA represents. I'm sure many of you have used them today.

We're a national trade association representing 35 member companies across Canada, collectively, a $20-billion industry employing around 12,000 people in over 87 facilities across the country. Our companies manufacture, process, package, and distribute consumer, industrial, and institutional specialty products, such as soaps and detergents, domestic pest control products, aerosols, hard-surface disinfectants, deodorizers, and automotive chemicals, or as I call it, everything under the kitchen sink. We are the downstream users of chemicals, as our products are generally based on the chemistry developed by the upstream companies.

I'd also like to take a moment, Mr. Chair, to thank the MPs around the table who assisted CCSPA with our education campaign in the spring on lyme awareness, “Don't be ticked off by ticks”, and on our fall campaign to educate children on the importance of handwashing. I hope that the education kits that CCSPA and the Canadian Institute of Child Health delivered to you last week were put to good use in your ridings.

Why are we here today? Bill C-13 amends six pieces of legislation to meet our trade obligations under WTO's agreement on trade facilitation. Five of the acts impact members of CCSPA. That legislation includes the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

CCSPA and our members support the World Trade Organization's agreement on trade facilitation; however, we believe some of the amendments drafted to ensure that Canada meets our obligations for the provision of in transit.... Am I speaking too fast? I got in trouble from the translators last time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the people in the audience and the witnesses.

Today we're dealing with a bill that's been sent to our committee that deals with trade. It's Bill C-13. We're trying to deal with it and get it back to the House this week. We have some witnesses who want to say a few words on the bill. From the Canadian Consumer Speciality Products Association, we have Shannon Coombs, and from CropLife, we have Pierre Petelle.

If you want to give your take on the bill that's been put forward to us, perhaps you could do that. You're both separate, of course, different organizations, so you have five minutes each and then we'll continue.

Go ahead.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

When we look at something like C-13, which is going through the House now, we see that it's just a modernization of regulatory rules which we are already using in most cases.

I think, Paul, you've talked about this. We need to help other countries recognize that science is the best way to evaluate these products. How successful are we with that outside of Canada?

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Oh, I'll think of something.

I'd like to refer back to the trade and investment strategy that you mentioned, Mr. Usher, and that my colleague Ms. Ramsey talked about. It was about preparing the small to medium-sized companies, but especially the small, for exporting. How will this information regarding Bill C-13 be disseminated to the small company or organization in Canada?

[Kim Dayman-Rutkus]

Under the Food and Drugs Act that in part regulates food, along with many other federal statutes, the current regulatory regime for food is maintained. All of the authorities that are brought to the Food and Drugs Act via Bill C-13 are applicable to food as well. The increased controls at the border over imported food would be available as well.

[David Usher]

It's really dealing with the trade facilitation elements of trade, not the sanitary and phytosanitary aspects or the TBT elements. That's not really the purpose of Bill C-13 .

Again, I don't know if my colleagues from the regulatory departments have any comments to make.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Okay. Thank you.

We've also heard from witnesses across the country who have identified concerns about the harmonization as well as phytosanitary concerns. Will Bill C-13 help bring that together?

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

It would be great for them to be able to hear your presentation, because one of the concerns that Dr. Howard raised was a lack of input regarding health and climate change in trade negotiations and trade discussions. I'd be very pleased for her to hear about Bill C-13.

Could you inform us how long it will take in the transition period to put this into place?

[David Usher]

My understanding is that there is nothing in Bill C-13 that limits the ability of the regulatory agencies to act appropriately if they see those goods coming into Canada.

[David Usher, Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, committee members.

My name is David Usher, and I'm the director general for trade negotiations at Global Affairs Canada.

It is a real pleasure to be here today to speak about Bill C-13. This bill is required for Canada to implement the World Trade Organization's Trade Facilitation Agreement, which I will refer to as the TFA.

I'm joined today by colleagues from Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. If I may, Chair, I will quickly introduce them. Jason Flint, director general, policy, communications and regulatory affairs, and Kim Dayman-Rutkus, director of the centre for regulatory and compliance strategies, are both from Health Canada; Sara Neamtz, acting executive director, legislative governance, is from Environment and Climate Change Canada.

I hope they will be able to provide you with answers to specific questions that you might have regarding elements of Bill C-13 in areas related to the mandates of their ministries.

My remarks will cover two main issues. I'd like to start by providing an overview of the provisions of the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the effects of the TFA on merchandise trade; then I will explain why enacting Bill C-13 is required to allow Canada to ratify the TFA. Obviously I and my colleagues will be pleased to answer any questions you might have following my presentation.

First, on trade facilitation, in the context of trade agreements we're talking about simplifying, harmonizing, and standardizing procedures and measures that cover the movement of goods across national borders. In Canada this generally covers policies and measures implemented by the Canada Border Services Agency and other federal departments that operate at the border, such as Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

The TFA is designed to make merchandise trade faster, cheaper and more predictable. The lack of transparency, multiple documentation requirements, and lengthy clearance processes increase trade costs. Global value chains, just-in-time delivery systems, e-commerce, and the fast nature of transactions today require quick and reliable border crossing and clearance processes.

Since simplified trade procedures benefit all traders and generate positive effects when more countries participate in such an agreement, trade facilitation reform is best done when many countries are dealing with it on a multilateral basis. This is why the WTO TFA helps to provide a global foundation that will extend trade modernization and facilitation worldwide and ensure maximum benefits to traders once it enters into force.

WTO negotiations towards the TFA concluded in December 2013. The idea of the negotiations goes back to 1996 and they began in 2001.

This major accomplishment was a win for the global trading community and for the WTO. The TFA develops global trade rules to expedite the movement, release, and clearance of goods.

Now, this agreement will have substantive economic effects. The World Trade Organization estimates that when the TFA is fully implemented by all WTO members, it could reduce trade costs by an average of 14%, including an average reduction of nearly 17% for least developed countries. It's expected that global merchandise exports could go up by up to $1 trillion. I think these are probably U.S. dollars, given that it's the WTO that did the study. Of that amount, up to $730 billion of the export gains will go to developing countries in particular, because the agreement will facilitate trade between them. These are important benefits, and they are especially important in a time when the global economy is slowing.

For Canada the benefits are expected to be most significant for our exporters, Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises that may not have the resources to comply with complex systems at the customs in foreign markets and for whom trade costs are therefore disproportionately high.

The TFA will enter into force once ratified by two-thirds of WTO members. So far, 92 of the required 110 WTO members have ratified the TFA. Canada's major trade partners, such as the U.S., EU, China, and Japan have already ratified it.

At the G20 Leaders' Summit in China this past September, the Prime Minister committed that Canada would ratify the TFA by the end of 2016. Canada would be joining the growing international consensus on this matter.

Let me now explain the link between the bill in front of you today, Bill C-13, and the TFA.

Canada is already compliant with the vast majority of the TFA provisions. In other words, the customs procedures and the measures that are applied by the CBSA and other federal departments like those we have with us today are already largely consistent with the obligations under the TFA. However, there are two provisions of the TFA where legislative amendments to Canadian statutes are required for Canada to comply with the obligations in the TFA.

Generally speaking, Bill C-13 will allow Canada to implement the TFA, while maintaining safeguards on the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.

As you stated, Mr. Chair, more specifically, Canada requires amendments to six Canadian statutes, which fall under the responsibility of Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, in order to ensure compliance with the TFA. Bill C-13 will lead to greater consistency in how goods are treated at the border and facilitate the transit of goods through Canada.

More specifically, Bill C-13 deals with two specific TFA provisions: article 10.8.1, which deals with the treatment of non-compliant goods rejected at the border, and article 11.8, which deals with goods in transit.

Let me speak first about article 10.8.1 of the TFA. The amendments being proposed in Bill C-13 would give Canada the necessary authority to take action regarding goods that are shipped to Canada but are non-compliant with our technical regulations. Possible actions dealing with those goods could include returning them, reconsigning them, seizing them, or disposing of these goods as necessary.

Turning to article 11.8 of the TFA, the amendments proposed in Bill C-13 would give Canada the necessary authority to allow Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to exempt goods in transit from certain Canadian technical regulations. These goods are not destined to enter commerce in Canada.

Safeguards are also going to be put in place where needed to mitigate health and safety risks to Canadian consumers and workers, in the event that goods in transit are diverted into the Canadian market; or in the case of handling, accidents or spills involving such goods.

My colleagues and I look forward to answering any questions you may have on Bill C-13 and the WTO TFA.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We'll get started again.

As I alluded to before we suspended, Bill C-13 has been put in front of us. The bill is going to change six acts, and it deals with the World Trade Organization, WTO.

We appreciate the officials coming here today to give us a snapshot. We have heard some of the changes and the implications in the House, but we'll get it right from you, if you'll give us 10, 15, or 20 minutes, or whatever time you need to explain what this is all about, where it comes from, and how it changes what we have to do here. We're going to be dealing with this clause by clause in a future meeting, but it would be good for the parliamentarians here to have an understanding of this bill.

The floor is yours. Again, thank you for coming. Use your time the way you want.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I thank you both for joining us here this morning from Yellowknife and giving your comments. There were good questions from the MPs here.

We'll suspend for a few minutes. When we come back, we'll deal with Bill C-13, which was given to us from the House yesterday.

Thank you again.

Food and Drugs Act

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill C-13. It is an opportunity to discuss the importance of trade. It is good to have a bill that I feel I can support the government on, because they are few and far between. It is a pleasure to be able to do that.

Obviously, to speak to the importance of trade we have to look at the fact that one in five jobs in Canada depend on trade. Sixty percent of our GDP is linked to exports, so that is obviously very significant. It creates jobs in the country and opportunities for businesses, particularly small business owners. History has shown us that trade is one of the best ways to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. As trade increases so does our nation's prosperity. We are putting more money into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

Under the previous Conservative government we had one of the most ambitious pro-trade agendas, probably the most ambitious in our country's history. We were able to conclude free trade agreements with 38 countries. That included Colombia, the European Free Trade Association, Honduras, Jordan, Panama, Peru, South Korea, and the 28 member-states of the European Union as well. We also concluded, signed, and brought into force foreign investment protection agreements with 24 countries. That is more than any other government in Canada's history as well.

Just to speak to a few of those, one of our historic achievements was the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. It was actually Canada's first free trade agreement with the Asia-Pacific region, one of the fastest growing regions. We also had the opportunity with a number of other countries. Ukraine is one that comes to mind as well. The Canada-European Free Trade Association agreement is another one that we certainly hope to see ratified. There is the TPP as well.

It is a pleasure to stand and support the legislation and continue to push for trade and growth in our economy.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me this afternoon to speak on Bill C-13, the trade facilitation agreement.

As we all know, and as we have stated here in the House for the last day and a half, Canada is a trading nation. It always has been and always will be, despite what is decided this year, this decade, or this century. Canada is known for trading.

From the early days, the traders came over to this country and settled many centuries ago. We should also be reminded of our first nations, because they were the first real traders of this country and they continue to be a valuable asset to this country.

I think our previous Conservative government raised the bar on trade. We started with the five agreements and we are at 51 now. With a country so rich in resources, we all agree that trade is essential in growing our economy here in Canada.

Canada needs to be a part of this trade agreement. As members know, it takes two-thirds of the WTO membership to make this happen. When we get there, hopefully we will be part of the solution.

This agreement seeks to level the playing field, and it would also help developing countries. I have a couple of instances in which I am going to talk about developing countries. So often we talk in the House about big business, but I am going to talk about how we in Canada, with our innovation, can help those in need throughout the world. I think that is an important part of this equation.

At the end of the day, this is all about making sure we have global standards that truly are enforceable. We talked a lot about the trans-Pacific partnership, and we will talk more in the House this coming year. On TPP, there is no question that it is the most comprehensive trade agreement in the world today, and I truly believe we must be a part of it.

We should reflect on the great work done by the previous government and the lead minister on the TPP, the member for Abbotsford, B.C. My province of Saskatchewan certainly salutes him. We averaged $23 billion in trade annually from 2012 to 2014. The TPP would eliminate the tariffs on almost all of Saskatchewan's key exports and would provide access to new opportunities, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Saskatchewan would benefit immensely from agriculture and agrifood.

We recently toured the Port of Vancouver, and I was delighted to see the rail cars come from Saskatchewan, with the word “Saskatchewan” on them, in the Port of Vancouver, dumping their grain into the ships for export worldwide. It was a thrilling moment to see the end part of that. Of course, being from Saskatchewan, I know that this is an important time in our province with the harvest that is going on. Our grain and agrifood is certainly a big part of who we are in this country.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to tour a potash mine in Allan, Saskatchewan. It was a real eye-opener to see what goes on in the potash industry. We spent the better part of the morning underground and then toured the facility on the surface as they prepared to ship Saskatchewan product to the world. Again, potash cars heading west with Saskatchewan product gives our province a sense of pride in the work that is being done by our men and women in the province of Saskatchewan each and every day. We all know that potash feeds the world, and even underdeveloped countries.

I should add that a number of new developments in potash have started in my province. We have the big miners, like BHP putting through their mine in Jansen. However, I want to talk about another mine that is coming up, K+S, originating from Germany. It is in the southern part of Saskatchewan.

Not only are the big producers benefiting from this agreement, but a number of the smaller ventures are also benefiting, such as mines like Karnalyte, which is starting a project in Wynyard; Gensource; and many other small operations that are exploring the possibility of exporting their product worldwide.

Also, pulse crops are really big in our province of Saskatchewan. Recently, I was flying back to Ottawa from Saskatoon and a delegation from the University of Saskatchewan was on the flight. They were going to Ethiopia to help partner with that country.

Ethiopia, as we all know in the House, is struggling, but the University of Saskatchewan has reached out, trying to develop Ethiopia's farming industry and pulse crops. People believe that pulse crops can be grown in Saskatchewan and also in Ethiopia. Canadians, as we all know, have great innovation skills and we love sharing our knowledge worldwide to make this a better place to live. That is what I mean about helping underdeveloped countries such as Ethiopia reach their potential.

I know several businesses in Saskatchewan that trade daily with countries around the world. I am going to name one in my city, Nutana Machine. It is in the city of Saskatoon. It supplies mining equipment, not only in our province but around the world. Imagine the sense of pride of the workers at Nutana Machine when they see their work being produced in Saskatoon. We talked about products produced and shipped over to Europe, and Nutana Machine now because of the Internet can deal with problems. If it does have an issue in Europe when it ships the product over to Europe, and Romania is one place that I have seen where it has shipped some goods, then the company can deal with it on the Internet and can actually see the end product. It is built in Saskatoon and then it is shipped to, let us say, Romania and they can see the end product and how it is working over there. Nutana employs right now a healthy workforce who live in our province of Saskatchewan. They certainly help our local economy.

Most of our farm-machinery outlets reach out to the world with their products and their knowledge. In the small community of St. Brieux, with a population of just over 600, is a farm manufacturer called Bourgault Industries. It does millions of dollars a year of business overseas. Looking at its website, we see it is advertising employment opportunities for assembly workers, for painters, for welders, for engineers, and for maintenance. All this is in a community of 600 people in St. Brieux. The company travels to Europe several times a year. In fact, I actually have a relative who works at Bourgault in St. Brieux. He travels to Europe several times a year, not only building relationships, which as members know is an important part of business, but has also adopted a second family from Germany who go back and forth. Bourgault Industries is one of the big success stories in our province.

I come from Humboldt. It is in the area called the “iron triangle”. Manufacturing firms have set up everywhere around the Humboldt community in places like Annaheim, Englefeld, and as I mentioned, St. Brieux. They are communities that probably would not exist today if not for some previous trade agreements. All of these communities have welcomed experienced workers from all over the world to come to Canada and start a new life. They have fit in well in our communities in Saskatchewan. They have contributed greatly to the economy and well-being of rural Saskatchewan. I would say that rural Saskatchewan would be a ghost town without these trade deals.

My late father was born too soon. He was the head flour miller for Robin Hood. He started his career in Ontario, went to Moose Jaw, and later to Saskatoon. He moved to Humboldt to help the Humboldt flour mills. Even in the 1960s, the flour that he produced was sent all over North America. I can imagine now if he were living today, hearing about this opportunity to show the world his product and the quality he could provide to others in other countries.

This agreement, as we all know, would give Canadian businesses access to over 60% of the world's economy. The gains from tariff elimination and improved market access in agriculture are especially significant in the markets of Malaysia. We have talked about Vietnam here in the House, and also Japan, but let us think about the market of Japan. Thirty-two per cent of tariff lines on agriculture and agri-food products would be duty free upon entry. That is a real opportunity for our economy, especially for our beef and pork producers, who would have access to that huge market. This would have a big impact on small- and medium-sized businesses. Trade missions to other parts of the world are a normal process in this country. There is not a province or a territory now that does not do trade missions worldwide. We have one from our province right now in South Korea.

Canada must act quickly on Bill C-13. There are 800 million new potential customers waiting for Canada. Canada is known for its hard work. We are known for our quality products and innovation. Let us not get in the way of this process.