International Trade Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Shannon Coombs]

That's an interesting question. I don't know. I'd have to get back to you on that.

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

Okay.

The term “trade facilitation” has been used in the context of a wide range of technical barriers to trade. During your technical briefings on the WTO TFA act, it was reported that the vast majority of interactions between stakeholders and representatives consisted of technical questions and clarifications. Did the majority of the concerns revolve around how the WTO TFA act would affect labelling practices in Canada?

[Pierre Petelle]

From our perspective, when we're talking about trade in the broader context, it's agricultural trade. It's issues like maximum residue limits that are different. Farmers can't export their crops to certain countries because of different residue definitions or different residue levels. Those are direct and impactful barriers to trade that we're hoping to continue to work with the government on resolving.

This is a very specific labelling provision. We're just wanting to make sure that we're getting the definition right. As I said, we want to make sure that it enables the new era of electronic labels but that it doesn't unnecessarily capture things like a website that talks about a whole range of different things. We don't want that to fall under necessarily the definition of a label.

When we talk about technical trade barriers, it's really around the ability to export and the different regulatory environments around the world. This is quite a focused element for us.

[Shannon Coombs]

The importance for our members is that if you sell in North America, you still have a Canadian label for pesticides and you'll have a U.S. label. They're very different. The use patterns are often different. The directions to consumers would be different.

For us, in terms of the comments around the webinar, it was making sure that the definition we currently have is good for us domestically at home, as well as for meeting our trade obligations.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Your time is up.

We'll move over to the NDP now.

Ms. Ramsey, you have the floor.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentations on a very difficult, specific topic. I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Petelle, you mentioned that the implications could be broad around the labelling. You even mentioned the websites. I think Ms. Coombs mentioned QR codes. I wonder if you can break it down a little more specifically to us on what your fears are in this label definition. What could the scope mean to your industry? What are your concerns, more specifically, around how it could impact you?

[Pierre Petelle]

When we look at pesticide labels versus many other regulated commodities, and I don't pretend to know all those other regulated commodities as well as I know pesticides, certainly the pesticide label is a legal document that really spells out the approved use pattern of that product. We know that if products are used inappropriately there can be risks associated with pesticide use. That's a given. The final use directions that end up on that label and the precautionary statements are all a result of the data that have been analyzed and the risk assessments that have been conducted by Health Canada. It's very important that those labels be followed.

When we talk about the pesticide label—this has been well enshrined with growers and other users—that label is the law. The information that conveys both how to use the product and the safety information is the law, and it's important that they follow it. We just don't want it to be diluted with other things that might fall under the scope of a label, such as a website, i.e., one of our member's websites that, yes, talks about that product, so therefore belongs to that product, but then also goes on and talks about lots of other things, such as resistance management practices and other nice-to-do things that aren't necessarily legal requirements.

That's our concern around the scope creep. Hopefully I've articulated it.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

On your proposal to delete the clause related to CEPA, can you tell us what the department responded to you? What was their response around your concerns?

[Shannon Coombs]

It was that we needed just a general exemption, but it didn't relate back to what we consider....

In the regulations there is already a provision in place, under section 117, that allows the creation of regulations for import purposes. We thought that because they have to amend the regulations anyway—they said that would for sure have to happen—we would just go ahead and amend those regulations and not have to create an exemption.

Right now it's worded like this:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations exempting a cleaning product or water conditioner from the application of section 117.

We think that's too broad. A provision already exists in section 117 to create a regulation.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

How have they responded to your concerns about the ambiguity of the labelling?

[Shannon Coombs]

I think as Pierre pointed out, they were trying to make everyone happy with the definition. The current definition has that piece about “required by the act or the regulation” so it's very specific. It goes back to the regulations we have for a label. It is a legal entity. It's important that the label is clear and concise and that it is approved by Health Canada as part of the regulations and act. When we were adding the word “prescribed” because “required by the act or regulations” had been removed, the lawyers had thought that “prescribed” would provide us the same level of certainty because it relates directly back to those regulations. But the words around “belongs to” or “is to belong to” doesn't convey exactly what that means. We don't know what it's physically attached to, is it a QR code, is it a website? There's nothing to suggest it is and nothing to suggest it's not.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

How would this play out for the consumer, for the average Canadian who purchases your products and uses them? Do you think this change that's being proposed would impact them in their everyday use of your products?

[Shannon Coombs]

I think we're trying to tidy the regulation legislation from a domestic point of view. We're not trying to interfere with any of the trade aspects of this. We're fully supportive of having that in-transit provision put into WTO. We want to make sure that the regulations are adhered to with respect to cleaning products only having 0.5% of phosphorus in them. We don't want any exemption provision made except for an in-transit provision and it's specifically written into the regulations as they currently stand. We don't want them to be misinterpreted by people.

[Pierre Petelle]

From our perspective it goes back to that label and the clear understanding from the end user that when we talk about that label what we're talking about is instructional directions and not marketing information. That's where we see the link with the end user—making sure that what we're all talking about is clear when we talk about a label, whether it be electronic or paper.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We'll have the last questions from Madame Lapointe. Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses joining us today.

What you've been talking about is very specific. You talked about labelling and phosphates. We discussed the labelling issue. You also said that it would help you to have QR codes on products. Did I understand that correctly?

[Pierre Petelle]

Often the labels can be 60 pages long—

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

Very well.

[Pierre Petelle]

—with all the uses. What we're seeing our industry moving toward, what we'd like to move toward, is enabling that user to be able to scan that bar code or QR code. Then if he's applying his product to corn and he doesn't need to read the six pages about soybeans, he just goes right to corn and he gets to that exact specific part of the label. That can all be done electronically now very easily. That's where we see the industry moving.

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

You asked that it be changed, but your request wasn't granted.

[Pierre Petelle]

We've begun informal discussions with the department, and I think they're open to finding a way to limit what we call the “belongs to” wording, the language we find problematic.

That's why at the beginning I said if it's not this specific amendment, if it's something else that comes back from the department, we would be open to a discussion because there are more ways to get to what we need. Whatever language gets us to that point we're fine with that.

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

Thank you. That's still quite specific.

I gathered that the both of you supported Bill C-13. Do you expect that it will increase your exports from Canada?

[Pierre Petelle]

It should help facilitate products that are coming through. We don't want Canada to be seen as a barrier to.... For example, if a company wants to use the Port of Vancouver—and the benefits that come from that to Canada—and then ship their products to a U.S. destination, we wouldn't want Canada to miss out on that opportunity and have that shipment diverted to a southern port. It's not necessarily going to increase our trade and our bottom line here in Canada, but I think a lot of other businesses would benefit from this type of ability to move products across the country, whether it's rail or shipping.

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

At the very least, more merchandise would transit between ports or be shipped by rail to its destination. That's your view.