International Trade Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Pierre Petelle]

Yes, that's a possibility.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Have you quantified the impact on sales? Would you say that Bill C-13 will benefit you or that it absolutely needs amending?

[Pierre Petelle]

I think the provisions to enable the trade and the changing of the definition of “package” is a good thing. We can't quantify—and haven't—what that could mean to our members. Each of the companies operates a little differently, so we haven't quantified what it could mean.

The narrowing of scope of the label definition would keep it, as Shannon said, a little tidier. We want that ability to move into that new era of electronic labels, but we also want to make sure the scope is within what we're talking about, and that the label is really the information, the use directions, and the safety information, not other website-based stuff.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

We've been focusing on the United States and Canada, but I don't think there's consistency at the international level, mainly in terms of facilitating exports to Africa. Is that correct?

[Pierre Petelle]

This provision, as far as we know, from what we've been paying attention to on this one, is to allow in-transit.... If you want to move an ingredient for a pesticide within Canada, currently the definition would require that it fall under the labelling provisions of the Pest Control Products Act as if it were going to be used in Canada. This new language would help make sure that can happen without the full labelling provisions that are required for a product.

Again, we don't know and we can't quantify what that could mean in terms of increased trade through Canada, but for some countries it's probably much more significant, such as landlocked countries, etc. We don't know what the impacts would be in other areas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Madame Lapointe.

That wraps up this round of the questioning. I thank the witnesses for giving us their perspectives on the bill.

We're going to suspend for five to 10 minutes. We have a lot of officials here who can help us if we need them for any questions. They will come to the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We're going to resume our meeting. As the committee members can see, we have members of some departments here. We have Environment, Foreign Affairs, and Health here for backup if we need them for clarification, or for any implications you have.

I've attended many meetings over the last 15 years as a member, but not as a chair. I know there are new members here this year, so I'll say a couple of things about so-called clause-by-clause. Some committees operate a little differently, but there are a couple of things.

You'll see all of the clauses in front of you. Sometimes we may group clauses together, if everybody agrees. I could group 10 together, so I could say, “Is everybody agreed from 1 to 10? Carried.” That's pretty simple.

What I'd like to see is that, if there's an amendment or discussion on a clause—and we'll see this when we do our own study on TPP—whichever member wants to make the change would speak on what they see needs to be changed. Then, of course, other members can chime in when they want, if they want to also talk on it. I would like whoever wants to talk on it to just say their piece, and then usually what I see at committees is that the member who wants the change will have the final say and we bring it to a vote. It doesn't happen too often, but it does happen.

Sometimes during the process, the committee will decide not to vote on a clause. Oftentimes you want to get things rolling and if there is a certain clause that we can't seem to agree on, or we need translation, sometimes we can park it and come back to it. That's another thing we can do.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and on the bill itself, and an order for a reprint of the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report will contain only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Does anybody have any questions on procedure before I get going here? Of course, everybody read this last night.

By the way, it's good to see you here, Mr. Allison, joining our committee. It's a fun committee. Too bad you couldn't come with us to Atlantic Canada last week.

The bill's in front of you. We have one amendment coming up here, and it deals with clause 31. Does everybody agree that we can pass clauses 1 to 30?

(Clauses 1 to 30 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 31)

Now we're going right to clause 31. We have an amendment presented by Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Ritz, do you want to comment on it?

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

I would just let what the witnesses talked about stand as the rationale for doing this. I think they explained it quite well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Are there any more comments on the amendment?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Sorry, I think I saw Ms. Ramsey's hand, out of the corner of my eye, first.

Go ahead.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I have a question for the department officials who are here. Can I just direct it to them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Yes.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Okay. If we implement this change, will it in any way affect our eligibility to be a part of this as a whole? Essentially, we're signing onto something that a number of other countries have also signed onto. Will this change impact our compatibility with the necessary legislation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Whoever wants to answer, go ahead.

[David Usher, Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Chair.

It's nice to be here again. I'm David Usher from Global Affairs Canada.

The implications of this deletion—effectively it's deleting clause 31 from Bill C-13—would be to deny Environment and Climate Change Canada the statutory authority necessary to make regulations required to exempt cleaning products or water conditioners in transit through Canada from the application of technical regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. As a result, to answer your question, if clause 31 were deleted, Canada would not have the—

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

It's not clause 31. It's lines within clause 31.

[David Usher]

That's right. It's proposed new subsection 118(1.1).

We would not have the ability to comply with our article 11.8 of the trade facilitation agreement.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

What would that then mean? That would mean we wouldn't be able to comply with any of this piece? Bill C-13 is bundled together with the changes. As a whole then, if we removed this one piece, are we unable to be in compliance? Will it void our compliance with the entire package?

[David Usher]

Not with the entire package, with one specific sub-element of the trade facilitation agreement. The trade facilitation agreement requires that technical regulations should not be applied to goods in transit, and this is giving the authority to Environment Canada to exempt those products from that application.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I'm still not clear. I'm sorry, but I have to understand. If this is removed, are we able then to pass Bill C-13 or not? Are we able to make amendments to this language as presented?

[David Usher]

Going back to my earlier comment, Chair, if this clause is deleted, we would not be able to comply with article 11.8 of the trade facilitation agreement that deals with how we treat goods that are in transit in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Then we would not be in compliance with the other countries in the WTO trade facilitation being proposed?