Evidence of meeting #31 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was change.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada
No, we haven't done the domestic analysis. We're confident of the WTO analysis in terms of the benefits. It's not in effect yet. Once the agreement goes into effect, the magnitude of the real benefits will be known, but the WTO assessment is probably a realistic assessment.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
Is it their assessment that 14% would apply across the board, or is that sectoral? Would different sectors have more savings? Are these savings to be had at the border, as we heard from Mr. Ritz, depending on the border? Where are these savings? Where do you see the savings coming from?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
About the harmonization, I get all of that, where do you see the savings?
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada
Let me give you an idea.
What they're doing is calculating the costs caused by a customs delay, for example. Let's talk about clearance for exports in 2014. When you look at the WTO membership, you will see that it could take between two and 11 documents and between six and 86 days to get goods out of the country. In terms of imports, it could go from two to 17 documents, depending on the country, or from four to 130 days.
All of those delays and paperwork have a certain cost for the exporters, whether they're small and medium-size, medium-sized, or large, and that's how they're calculating these benefits. With the agreement, these costs will be reduced, because the delay at borders will be minimized and the paperwork will be consolidated. That's how they're doing the assessment of the costs.
Their assessment is that Canada is already largely compliant, so our changes are relatively minimal. A country in the developing world may well have a very paperwork-heavy customs clearance procedure, so the changes in a developing country will be more significant and the benefits will therefore be larger, both for their exporters and for Canadian companies looking to export to them.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
In Ontario, 90% of our trade is still with the United States. Do you see this agreement helping in terms of diversifying our markets and making it easier to go global?
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada
The U.S. has signed on to the trade facilitation agreement. I'm not an expert on our specific regulatory initiatives here, but my view is that the existing co-operation that your colleague referred to earlier goes farther than the TFA obligation. In terms of the U.S., we probably have a better situation than the TFA at present.
In terms of allowing us to diversify trade to the extent that exporters can export more easily to other markets, if they take advantage of it, yes, it will be positive.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
Why have we waited so long to get to this point? It sounds as though it's all good. What has taken so long?
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada
Well, the negotiations took some time. The negotiations were completed in 2014. We had an election, and that may also have delayed the legislative process a little bit, but we are now moving ahead.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Is that it for the Liberals?
Each party had a chance to ask questions, but we still have a bit of time. Does any MP want to ask any more questions?
Go ahead, Ms. Ramsey.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Getting back to goods in transit through Canada, the concern is that Canadians will be exposed to additional risk as these things are passing through.
Will they be required to have a travel plan so that we can watch them when they are travelling through the country, or at least we know where they will be in the country if, God forbid, something like a spill happens that would impact Canadian communities?
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada
I will try at my level to explain some of these points and I will turn to my colleagues as required.
In terms of goods in transit, the modifications in the agreement provide for Health Canada to have oversight to identify goods in transit that may not comply with Canadian technical regulations, and allow it, I would argue, to continue to protect the environment and the health and safety of persons who come into contact with certain pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs.
Let me end there and turn to my colleague Jason or my colleagues from Environment Canada to see if they have anything they wish to add.
12:20 p.m.
Acting Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
From Environment Canada's perspective, the risk of increased environmental impacts from the amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would be low. The purpose of the current prohibition is to limit the amount of nutrients. The only nutrient that is currently under the regulation is phosphorus, which naturally occurs in the environment. It basically limits what goes down our drains. If there were a spill of a truck that contained these cleaning products, they are in a container, in a box in a truck, and the risk of these products getting into water sources would be quite low.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Do we have a problem currently with non-compliant goods that are being stockpiled at the government's expense? What to do with the products that have been rejected at our border is part of this as well. Is there currently an issue in that regard?
12:20 p.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada
I should say how pleased I am to have experts here with me today. I will turn to my colleague from Health Canada.
Kim, please go ahead.
September 22nd, 2016 / 12:20 p.m.
Kim Dayman-Rutkus Director, Centre for Regulatory and Compliance Strategies, Department of Health
The department currently does incur costs, in some cases significant costs, to store goods that have been seized at the border and for which the forfeiture provisions in the legislation are currently insufficient. These provisions are put in place in order to enable the recovery of the costs related to non-compliant goods that are incurred by the government so that the costs are borne appropriately by the importers who are responsible for the importation of those non-compliant goods.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you.
I have heard concerns about the shipment of endangered whale meat through Canadian ports and territories. A few years ago there was a case that involved 12 containers of endangered fin whale meat that were shipped through Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver, which was legal in Canada despite our being a signatory to CITES. I am concerned about the implications of expanding these transshipments and I am concerned to see Canada play a more significant role in the trade of controversial goods, such as endangered species. What can be done to address this situation?
12:20 p.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada
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.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I have one quick question, then.
There are definitions that are included in this change. I have a question about one of them, under clause 1.
I am wondering why a person is defined as an individual or an organization. How can a person be an organization? I wonder if you can explain why this change was deemed necessary.
12:20 p.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada
From a general sense, you often talk about a legal person in this context, so maybe that is the intent.
I will turn to my regulatory experts.
12:20 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Health
When the definition was changed, it was based on legal precedents set over the years. The definition of “person” was actually taken from the Criminal Code. We've modified the definition of “person” through several pieces of legislation to refer to “person” as in the definition in the Criminal Code, which includes any sort of corporation, association, or group of people. When the reference to “person” occurs, it allows us to take action against the natural person as an individual or against a person in the legal sense of being a corporation. That's why you see the change.
Then there were consequential changes that we had to go through to amend where it previously said “person”; we had to then talk about “individual”. It's pretty much consistent throughout the Health Canada legislation. We're making this change to be consistent with the Criminal Code of Canada.
