International Trade Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2016

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your presentations here today.

This measure has been in the hopper for a while. The election got in the road, but now we're here and we're going to implement it, along with a number of other countries. I remember when they were talking about this in Bali, I think it was, when it came to the fore. It's a last gasp to keep the WTO relevant and moving forward as a rules-based organization. We fully support that. The goals specified in your presentations—to simplify, harmonize, and standardize—I fully appreciate and agree with all of that. This will have a positive effect on the thinning of the borders, as it were. We'll build on the Regulatory Cooperation Council work that we've done with the U.S.

Is there going to be a specific recognition of science that will facilitate that trade when we implement this measure?

[David Usher]

Thank you very much for that question.

In terms of recognition of science, I will make a general comment and I'll turn to my colleagues from the two other ministries.

Within the WTO agreement, we also have the agreement on technical barriers to trade. We also have the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. I think those are the agreements that deal more with the specific science elements of regulations at the border, but I will turn to my two colleagues to see if they have anything they wish to add.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Is there any capacity in putting this in play? There's always a concern, and it goes back to PMRA and some of the largesse they've taken on when it comes to labelling. If you add different water, it changes everything, and there are some concerns around that. Is there any increase in the scope of what will be considered a label, or what can or needs to be put on a label? Do you see anything like that happening?

[David Usher]

Thank you for your question. I'll turn to Health Canada for that.

[Jason Flint, Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Health]

The definition of a label was proposed to be changed in this act, and it was designed to separate it from the packaging because we're now putting in provisions to deal with unregistered products that may be in transit. The idea was to harmonize label definitions, and we looked at definitions under the Safe Food for Canadians Act and the previous Pest Control Products Act to see what we could do. The only intention that was looked at that possibly increasing it would allow for electronic labels in the future.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It would maintain our ability to use the metric system, official bilingualism....

[Jason Flint]

Yes, all those things are there, but—

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Exactly; it would keep all of that.

Did you have presentations from some of the pest control distributors and manufacturers in Canada in the development of this bill?

[Jason Flint]

Not in the development of this bill, no. After it was tabled, we did hear from them that they had expressed concern that perhaps it was expanding the scope of the label beyond what they were comfortable with, but we did discuss and explain to them where the origins were and what the intention was with the definitions—

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

And they're happy, or as happy as they get?

[Jason Flint]

They still have their concerns, but we've expressed what we intend to do with the labelling.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Have they understood that and moved on and everything's fine?

[Jason Flint]

They can speak for themselves.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Some of them still have some concerns, but I just wanted to make sure that you understood that they did and that you had addressed them accordingly. I think you have.

Does anybody have anything to add? No?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We'll move over to the Liberals and Mr. Peterson. Go ahead.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everyone for being with us today.

Mr. Ritz touched on it in the specific context of the pest control industry, but I wonder what consultations were done broadly with industry in the development of the wording in the bill, and maybe even afterwards.

[David Usher]

I can read a list of input we've received, but specific line ministries can comment on the nature of the input they've received from their industry colleagues.

Do you have any comments regarding specific input from industries?

[Jason Flint]

During the development of the bill itself, there was not consultation in advance. It was all in reaction to implementation of the trade facilitation agreement. We had consultation once the bill was introduced into Parliament. There was a technical briefing to allow for industry to respond and pose questions. The comments we've received so far are minimal and generally are supportive of the direction we're taking.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

[David Usher]

Perhaps my colleague from Environment Canada can add something.

[Sara Neamtz, Acting Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment]

It's the same situation. We participated in those technical briefings. I would also say that it's an amendment to give a regulatory authority under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Once the amendments are in force, a regulation would be proposed, and it would go through the normal public consultation period before that exemption came in.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Usher, would you comment?

[David Usher]

In terms of the larger consultative process, I can confirm that provinces and territories, for example, were consulted on the TFA agreement and are supportive of the agreement. No concerns were raised.

The Canadian agrifood alliance, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Cattlemen's Association, the Council of Chief Executives, the Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Meat Council, and the Further Poultry Processors Association of Canada have all issued or signed on to various press releases supporting the TFA.

In the spirit of transparency, I should indicate that the Council of Canadians was the only stakeholder to express sensitivities or concerns regarding the TFA, on the basis of their belief that the agreement would only benefit large agribusiness firms and not small-scale farmers.

I hope that answers your question.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

That does.

Picking up on the position of the Council of Canadians, were those concerns addressed, and, if so, how were they addressed?

[David Usher]

Thank you for that question. Our belief, as I mentioned in my introductory comments, is that given that it's small and medium-sized enterprises that are often more adversely affected by complex customs regulations at the border, improving transparency and facilitating the cross-border trade of goods will in fact benefit small and medium-sized companies even more than larger firms, so we believe the concerns expressed are not founded. We think that if you reduce trade administration costs, Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises in all sectors, including the agriculture sector, will be more competitive and will better integrate into international trade.