International Trade Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Go ahead.

[David Usher]

We would not be in compliance with that specific element of the trade facilitation agreement, and obviously we would like to be compliant with the WTO obligations.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

It would prevent us from being one of the signatory countries to these changes.

[David Usher]

I cannot make a decision as to whether Canada ratifies the agreement or not. I'm just giving you the views on the implication of deleting that element of Bill C-13.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay.

Mr. Dhaliwal, do you have questions?

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

I'll carry on with what Ms. Ramsey was mentioning to you, Mr. Usher. The way I see it is that in 2013 the adoption of the TFA was delayed just by one country. I think it was India because they didn't want to agree until the issues were resolved.

If we change this clause, or delete this proposed subsection out of this, do you think there is any country that will not be happy with what we have, and will delay facilitation further?

[David Usher]

Thank you for that question.

I can't speculate on the views of other countries, but in terms of the WTO obligations that Canada enters into, we should endeavour to be compliant with the obligations. The modification proposed in Bill C-13 allows us to be compliant with this WTO agreement that all members have negotiated and agreed to.

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

Basically are you telling us that if we modify that clause or that proposed subsection, we will not be in compliance, and then the intent of the bill is not there?

[David Usher]

I will read you the specific element of the trade facilitation agreement in a minute, but article 11.8 of the agreement is dealing with how governments deal with goods in transit, where goods in transit are exempt from technical regulations while they are in transit, so we don't impede, as the previous witnesses said, goods in transit, let's say, through Canada to the Port of Vancouver for export to a third market.

If we are not giving Environment and Climate Change Canada the necessary authorities to take that step, then we will have issues with our compliance with article 11.8 of the agreement.

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

Thank you. That answers my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We'll have Mr. Peterson, then Ms. Ramsey, and then I'm going to have final words from Mr. Ritz. Then we're going to vote on the amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Peterson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, officials, for being here today.

I'm going to take it from the other angle, I think. What was the rationale and what was the purpose of including these lines from clause 31 in Bill C-13?

[David Usher]

I think for this response, I'll turn to my colleague from Environment and Climate Change Canada.

[Mary Ellen Perkin, Manager, Consumer and Cleaning Products, Department of the Environment]

Yes, good morning.

As noted earlier, we do have existing regulations on phosphorous that have been made under section 117 of the act, and that requires a prohibition of the amount of phosphorous in certain products coming into Canada.

Section 118 provides us with the authorities necessary to make those regulations. There is no existing authority for exempting any products from the regulation as it stands. We do not have the statutory authority to be able to exempt the products in transit through Canada, given the current structure of the act.

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

I will follow up on that, if I may.

There's no regulation that could be added or amended that would achieve this purpose. Is that what you're saying?

[Mary Ellen Perkin]

The authority does not exist right now.

Our intention is to take the existing regulations, if this authority is granted to us, and add the exemption for goods in transit into the existing regulations.

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

Presumably there would be regulations that flow from that, if necessary.

[Mary Ellen Perkin]

The amendment would be in the current regulations, if we're given the statutory authority to make those changes.

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

There's going to have to be corresponding regulation changes.

[Mary Ellen Perkin]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Ritz, your final comments on this.

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

For clarification on WTO guidelines and so on, they're usually broad strokes. Each country has its own sovereignty to apply, within those broad strokes, the general direction from the WTO. We would not give up our sovereignty in order to make little finite changes within the Canadian substruct of that.

Environment and Climate Change Canada is talking about regulations. This would give you the authority to do that. We already have that authority within our own sovereignty. You could do it without being directed by a WTO agreement, could you not?

[David Usher]

I have undertaken to read the specific element of article 11.8 of the TFA, and maybe I could begin to answer your questions and my colleague from Environment would add.

In terms of the trade facilitation agreement, article 11.8 says as follows: “Members shall not apply technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures within the meaning of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade”—which is another WTO agreement—“to goods in transit.”

The key element of this clause is to give Environment and Climate Change Canada the statutory authority to do so, or to not apply the technical standards and regulations to goods in transit.

I'll let you just supplement that.

[Mary Ellen Perkin]

To clarify, currently the act doesn't provide us the authority under section 118 to exempt these products.