Evidence of meeting #15 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was negotiations.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kendal Hembroff  Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Darren Smith  Director, Services Trade Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Colin Bird  Director, Trade Policy and Negotiations Division , Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Marie-Noëlle Desrochers  Acting Executive Director, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)) Liberal Judy Sgro

I call the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on International Trade, in the 43rd Parliament. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a study of Canada's efforts to reform the World Trade Organization.

We have with us witnesses this afternoon. From the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have Marie-Noëlle Desrochers, acting executive director, market and industry services branch.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Don McDougall, deputy director of the investment trade policy division; John Layton, executive director of the trade remedies and North America trade division; Kendal Hembroff, director general of trade negotiations; Colin Bird, director of the trade policy and negotiations division; and Darren Smith, director of the services trade division.

Welcome to all of you. We appreciate very much your taking the time this afternoon to come and speak to the committee and share some of the knowledge you have with all of us.

Ms. Hembroff, I think you're the one who is going to be making the opening statement. You have the floor.

3:30 p.m.

Kendal Hembroff Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to be here today to provide an update on the government's engagement in the reform of the World Trade Organization, the WTO, including Canada's leadership of the Ottawa Group.

I am joined by several colleagues from Global Affairs Canada, namely Colin Bird, director of the Trade Policy and Negotiations Division, Darren Smith, director of the Services Trade Division, John Layton, executive director of the Trade Remedies Division, and Don McDougall, deputy director of the Investment Trade Policy Division.

Allow me to begin by providing a bit of context. The WTO is critical for Canada because it governs trade between 164 members and it provides a stable and predictable framework of rules and market access for Canadian companies accessing world markets, backed up by binding dispute settlement.

Canada is a founding member of the WTO, which was created in 1995, and has a long history and a solid reputation as a committed multilateralist. In fact, members are reminded of Canada's contributions to the multilateral trading system every time they walk through the doors of the WTO Secretariat building in Geneva. Canada donated the large wooden doors to the old International Labour Organization headquarters, where the WTO now sits.

Over the last few years, the multilateral trading system has faced an increasingly challenging environment, characterized by the rise of protectionism and the use of unilateral trade measures.

Beyond difficulties in concluding negotiations in a number of areas, current challenges include divergent positions on trade priorities, a lack of consensus on how to treat developing countries, an overloaded dispute settlement system, and a stalemate surrounding vacancies to the WTO's appeal mechanism. Such challenges put the credibility and day-to-day functioning of the WTO at risk.

Against this backdrop, several years ago Canada took up a leadership role to build support for reform of the WTO and to identify concrete initiatives aimed at reforming the organization.

As one of the more visible examples of our contributions, Canada has been at the forefront of efforts to reinvigorate the WTO and is playing a leading role in the Ottawa group, a group of reform-minded WTO members first brought together by then minister for international trade diversification Jim Carr in October 2018. The group of 13 WTO members is diverse in terms of geographical representation and levels of development. It remains small, to allow for meaningful exchange of views, but it is meant to support broader discussion involving all WTO members.

Since its creation, the group has met at the ministerial level four times, most recently in Davos this past January.

One of the key achievements of the Ottawa group has been its role as a sounding board for the exchange of ideas. For example, the group has identified ways in which to improve transparency for businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, through more timely reporting and notification of new government regulations, laws and/or measures affecting trade.

Canada has also played a leading role in discussions on how to resolve the impasse in appointments to the WTO's appeal mechanism, also known as the appellate body, which is the most pressing issue facing the WTO.

Driven by concerns about the appellate body's functioning, the United States has blocked new appointments since 2017, so that, as of December 2019, there is a lack of quorum, which means that appeals can no longer be decided. Under these circumstances, a member deciding to appeal a panel finding can prevent the resolution of a dispute by effectively appealing into the void and undermining the legal rights of WTO members.

For a mid-size country such as Canada, this loss of recourse to binding dispute settlement has serious implications. We are an active user of the WTO's dispute settlement system and have been party to a total of 63 disputes since 1995—40 as a complainant, and 23 as a respondent.

The situation has provoked some creative problem-solving on the part of Canada.

This past July, Canada and the European Union developed a bilateral interim appeal arbitration arrangement to allow for appeals between ourselves until such time as the appellate body impasse is fixed.

Most recently, in Davos, this past January, Canada and 16 other WTO members built on the success of that arrangement by agreeing to work towards a similar interim arrangement that would apply between participating members until the appellate body is again functional.

While Canada's priority remains finding a multilateral solution to the appellate body impasse, these types of interim arrangements help safeguard our rights to binding two-stage dispute settlement with willing WTO members until the appellate body is functional again.

Canada is also playing an active role in a number of ongoing WTO negotiations. Although the current comprehensive multilateral round of negotiations launched in 2001, known as the Doha round, has reached a stalemate, negotiations continue on a stand-alone basis on several fronts.

That includes negotiations to address harmful fisheries subsidies, which have reached a critical stage. Fundamentally, this negotiation is about helping preserve fish stocks for future generations, but systemically, it is seen by many as a critical test of the WTO's negotiating function. Members are striving to conclude negotiations in time for the next WTO ministerial conference later this summer, and Canada has made a number of active contributions, including a recent proposal on overfishing and overcapacity.

Canada is also playing an active role on agriculture and has recently sponsored a statement by the Cairns Group in January calling for the reinvigoration of discussions to eliminate trade- and production-distorting agricultural subsidies, which represents a key interest for Canada and Canadian agricultural producers who face a very uneven playing field in trying to access international markets.

Challenges to the multilateral approach to negotiations have also led members to pursue negotiations through plurilateral negotiations, which involve only subsets of the entire WTO membership. For example, willing members have launched plurilateral negotiations, also known as joint statement initiatives, on e-commerce, investment facilitation for development, domestic regulation for services, and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. These negotiations have the potential to deliver significant benefits for Canadian businesses of all sizes, and Canada is actively participating in each.

Due to external circumstances related to COVID-19, the ministerial meeting of the Ottawa group that was scheduled to be held in Ottawa on March 18 has been cancelled as of a few hours ago. Efforts will continue on how best to plan our work in the lead-up to the 12th WTO ministerial conference, in Kazakhstan in June.

A key priority for Canada in the months ahead will be to deliver on a commitment made by the group in January, in Davos, to enhance its efforts to engage business and our citizens on WTO reform efforts. It is safe to say that there is almost unanimous support that the WTO needs to be reformed in order to ensure that the organization is relevant and fit for purpose for the 21st century. The challenge, however, is that collective agreement on precisely what that means remains elusive.

Perhaps that is a good note on which to end my comments. As you can see, I have a few experts here to help answer any specific questions the committee might have.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much, Ms. Hembroff.

For questioning, we'll go to Mr. Hoback.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here this afternoon.

I'm glad to hear your announcement on the meeting next week. I understand why that happened, and I think that's a responsible measure you've taken. Hopefully, we'll find a step to work around that, maybe through telephone or video conferencing or something like that, because the work you're doing is very important.

I want to go back to the appellate body and the U.S. concerns around the appellate body. From what I understand—and I know enough to be dangerous here, so I'm counting on you to educate me to a higher level, hopefully after this meeting—a lot of the concerns they had are justifiable concerns. These are concerns that go against what the original intent was when the appellate body was set up.

Obama was complaining. George Bush Jr. was complaining. There's been more than one regime complaining about this scenario in the U.S. There have been many. Why has it taken so long, and why did the U.S. feel it had to take it to a head, as it has now, in order to get the rest of the countries around the table to look at this seriously? Can you give us some background on that?

3:40 p.m.

Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Kendal Hembroff

I can start by giving a little context on the U.S. position on the appellate body.

The U.S. concerns—as have been cited by the member—are not new. For a number of years now, we have been hearing concerns about the way in which the appellate body operates.

I think that certainly any WTO member who has been involved in disputes at the WTO probably has some issues with some of the specific results of cases over the years. Certainly in a Canadian context, I can think of more than a few cases where we were disappointed with the way in which the appellate body took a decision on a particular issue.

Notwithstanding the fact that I think there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed by WTO members in looking very critically at the appellate body and the way it functions, both procedurally and how it handles certain substantive issues, what is important is that there is a need for a constructive dialogue on this. Certainly Canada and other WTO members have been ready to engage in discussions in Geneva in trying to find ways to reform the appellate body. We certainly see this as a very fundamental part of WTO reform.

This past year, New Zealand's ambassador to the WTO, Ambassador Walker, launched a series of discussions aimed at trying to find a solution to some of the long-standing problems affecting the appellate body, including addressing problems that have been identified by the United States but also by other WTO members.

Unfortunately, engagement by the entire membership was very uneven, and we did not see any engagement on the part of the United States on some of the specific issues that it had raised in the past.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

In light of the Ottawa group being formed, progressing and moving forward on some of these issues, do you see the U.S. possibly stepping in now and saying they're finally taking it seriously and being engaged? It's really tough to imagine any type of appellate body without the U.S. being involved having any clout or ability to do anything. Is that fair to say?

3:40 p.m.

Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Kendal Hembroff

We feel that U.S. engagement is absolutely essential, and we have looked for every opportunity to engage the United States. It's not just on appellate body reform but on WTO reform issues more generally. Certainly when the United States is ready to engage, we will be ready at the table.

We have also tried, through our network in the United States, to engage key thought leaders and businesses in the kinds of things that will be required for the United States to be engaged in these discussions.

Unfortunately, engagement thus far has been quite limited on the part of the U.S.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

How many Canadian cases are sitting there in front of the body right now that won't be heard or sitting in limbo at this point? We have three judges left, I understand, out of the five.

3:40 p.m.

Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Kendal Hembroff

I think Colin has figured it out.

We certainly have a case on wine right now with Australia. We also have a case on aircraft with Brazil. Then we have several cases with the United States, including softwood lumber.

I would have to check on the total number of cases right now. I think it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of five to eight. If the committee would like, we could provide a list of all the active disputes.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Sure. That would be great.

I assume I'm out of time.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

You have one minute left.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Let's use softwood lumber as an example. You have that case sitting there. Does it just sit there now until we figure out how to move forward, or is it progressing with the existing judges who are there?

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Kendal Hembroff

In terms of providing a little background, there are two levels of dispute settlement at the WTO: the panel stage and the appellate body or the appeal stage. At this point, cases at the panel stage are still proceeding as normal.

The issue we have run into now, as a result of the impasse in appointments to the appellate body, is that it is possible for a party, at the time a panel decision is issued, to appeal that dispute into what is effectively “the void”, meaning that, because there is no quorum to hear the appeal, the case does not progress further.

That is the reason Canada and other WTO members have explored this parallel, interim appeal arbitration arrangement, so those members who are part of that arrangement can use that appeal mechanism, as opposed to simply appealing into the void.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

That's fine for the members who are part of this organization, but outside of that it's....

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoback.

Ms. Bendayan.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the presentation.

I've been speaking with businesses and entrepreneurs, both large and small. Could you speak to the impact that the impasses you've described at the WTO have on our Canadian businesses?

In particular, yesterday we got a question regarding non-tariff barriers and how we can move forward. I know that we are in the middle of negotiations, as you mentioned, on a number of different issues at the WTO. I think it's important for Canadians to understand why and how these WTO issues are important to us in a very real way.

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Kendal Hembroff

I think that's a very timely question.

Minister Ng, last evening, chaired a dinner involving more than a dozen Canadian business people to talk specifically about the WTO and their views on the current challenges that are facing the organization. Some of the key themes that emerged from that discussion include the critical importance of the WTO for Canadian business.

The WTO, of course, governs the vast majority of our trading relationships. Although Canada has a number of free trade agreements in place with some of our key trading partners and 14 FTAs in force with 51 countries, that still leaves another hundred-plus WTO members who are not currently covered under any kind of preferential trade agreement.

In Canada, businesses, in particular, have expressed concerns regarding the impasse at the appellate body and are deeply concerned that Canada's rights at the WTO are undermined by that impasse, in particular vis-à-vis the United States.

We have also heard from Canadian business about the importance of ongoing negotiations in areas like agriculture, for example. E-commerce is another area that has been identified by Canadian business as very important and for which Canada is taking a very active role to try to bring their issues to the table.

I think that many countries have taken the WTO for granted over the last number of decades and have put the bulk of their focus on negotiating bilateral and regional free trade agreements, but the importance of the WTO, especially for a mid-sized country, really cannot be overstated.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Thank you.

Would it be possible for you to explain, along the lines of what you were discussing with my colleague, what happens once a case goes into the void? For example, should any of the cases involving Canada that are currently pending require appeal, or should we feel that we would like to appeal those decisions, what would our recourse be as of today?

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Kendal Hembroff

The answer to that question depends on who the other party in question is.

If the other party is a WTO member with whom we have some sort of interim arrangement in place, Canada would have the ability to appeal—if we felt that it was in our interests—under an interim arrangement.

In the event that the case does not involve a party with whom we have an interim arrangement in place, there's also the possibility that Canada could seek agreement with such a member that neither of us would appeal in the event of a panel decision. Failing that, Canada's other option would be to potentially seek dispute settlement under one of our existing bilateral and regional free trade agreements.

For example, all of our free trade agreements in place also contain dispute settlement mechanisms, including agreements like CUSMA, CPTPP and CETA, so we would also have that ability, should we not have the ability to pursue a dispute from start to finish under one of our bilateral agreements.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

I understand.

How does Canada's leadership of the Ottawa group fare at the WTO? Is Canada's leadership viewed positively at the WTO on this issue?

3:50 p.m.

Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Kendal Hembroff

I may be biased, but certainly we have received very good feedback from all WTO members in terms of the role we have taken. Our objective has been—at least at the start of these discussions—to try to build support for WTO reform in order to make sure that the organization is still relevant. More recently, we have focused in on very specific issues.

In fact, that support comes from a number of non-members of the Ottawa group. Certainly, the United States is well aware of our efforts through the Ottawa group and has been very supportive of our efforts to date. Similarly, China has also been very engaged.

The Ottawa group is not intended to be a monopoly of ideas on WTO reform. In fact, in many cases the group has welcomed proposals and presentations made by non-members of the group who also have ideas on WTO reform. It's really meant to be just a sounding board for any WTO members who have specific ideas that they want to bring to the table.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Ms. Hembroff, for coming to testify before our committee.

I listened to your presentation with great interest. It focused mostly on the attempts to reinvigorate the WTO, but unfortunately I didn't hear much about the why.

I believe you said that the efforts to reinvigorate the WTO are primarily motivated by the impasses caused by U.S. inaction. We could even bring up the 2006 impasses. That was the year when the Doha Round talks failed and were followed by protests, particularly in Seattle. The WTO never fully recovered from that challenge and could never re-inspire efforts to hold new rounds so it could start over.

My question is somewhat related to that. I have no problem with reinvigorating the organization, but why? Everyone agrees that there is a need for an institution that regulates trade globally. The principles and rules of the World Trade Organization, which emerged from the Marrakesh agreement, are very different from those that the 1947 Havana Charter, for example, would have had. There are a number of ways to regulate trade globally. There are several positions and approaches.

Is there a willingness to review and reform the organization's basic principles as well, before thinking of ways of implementing them?

3:50 p.m.

Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Kendal Hembroff

Thank you for your very good question.

The fact is the WTO has not kept pace with the manner in which trade has actually been conducted over the last decade or so. We do not have disciplines on electronic commerce, for example, which is increasingly a modality by which a lot of international trade is conducted. While Canada and other WTO members have in many cases been negotiating commitments on e-commerce in our bilateral and free trade agreements for the better part of 20 years, the WTO, at this point, has no disciplines in this area.

Similarly, there are types of disciplines that exist on subsidies, whether in areas like agriculture, industrial subsidies, or fish subsidies. This is another area where the WTO is in urgent need of updating the rules.

I don't want my earlier comments on what we are doing in terms of WTO reform to suggest that we are looking at minor tweaks. In fact, we are looking at fairly substantive changes, both through the negotiations we are undertaking and in terms of some of the more procedural elements. One point I should make, which is very important, is that ultimately WTO reform is not something that will happen overnight. It is something that will take many years to accomplish, and it will have many moving pieces. We do this as a very comprehensive effort, but there are many different moving pieces that are part of it.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Still, I will ask my question again. Could the principles and rules that the organization is responsible for enforcing be challenged? This is a vision that is very much focused on free trade, but more as an end in itself, rather than as a means. We must admit that there are certain clauses, such as the most-favoured-nation or rules of origin provisions, that have had some perverse effects on several fronts. For example, the dispute settlement system has already prevented Ontario from setting up an energy program with minimum thresholds for both local content and number of jobs created.

Would there be a willingness to challenge the WTO's core positions? If I had to boil it down, I would say that I still don't know whether I want to see the WTO rise again.