THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 19, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 9, 18 and 31 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Peter Boehm, I’m a senator from Ontario and Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Before we begin, for the benefit of all who are joining us today across the country, I wish to introduce the committee members participating in today’s meeting: Senator Gwen Boniface from Ontario, Senator Mary Coyle from Nova Scotia, Senator Marty Deacon from Ontario, Senator Amina Gerba from Quebec, Senator Stephen Green from Nova Scotia, Senator Peter Harder, Deputy Chair, from Ontario, Senator Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia, Senator Victor Oh from Ontario, Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador, Senator David Richards from New Brunswick and Senator Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
[Translation]
I wish to welcome all of you as well as people across the country who may be watching.
Today, we are conducting a hybrid meeting. I would like to remind senators and witnesses taking part by videoconference to please keep your microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair.
I to use the “raise hand” feature to be recognized. Those present here in the committee room can signal directly to the clerk, Ms. Lemay, their desire to ask questions or to comment.
[English]
Today, we are continuing the study that was referred to the committee on May 4. We’re considering the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 9, 18 and 31 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, which is the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1. last week, the committee studied Division 31. Today we’re looking specifically at Divisions 9 and 18.
During the first part of the meeting, we’ll examine Division 9, which aims to strengthen Canada’s trade remedy system. To discuss the matter, we have before us a number of government officials today. From the Department of Finance, we welcome Mr. Scott Winter, Senior Director, Trade Rules, and Marie-Hélène Cantin, Senior Economist, International Trade Policy. From Global Affairs Canada, we welcome André Moncion, Deputy Director, Trade Remedies Division. We have as well with us the Chair of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Frédéric Seppey, and he is accompanied by two officials from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Secretariat, Gillian Burnett, Executive Director, and Greg Gallo, Director of Investigative Services and Chief Economist. Finally, from the Canada Border Services Agency, Sean Borg, Director, Policy Integration, Planning and Performance.
Welcome everyone, and thank you for being with us. I understand that Mr. Winter is giving the usual opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from the senators.
Mr. Winter, the floor is yours.
Scott Winter, Senior Director, Trade Rules, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you, chair and senators, for the invitation today. Good morning to all. As indicated by the chair, my name is Scott Winter, and I’m the Senior Director of Trade Rules at Finance Canada. I’m joined by my colleague Marie-Hélène Cantin as well as by representatives of Global Affairs Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
I’ll be speaking to the amendments to the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, which are located in Part 5, Division 9 of the bill. As you know, these amendments implement the budget announcement of the government’s intention to strengthen and improve access to Canada’s trade remedy system. The trade remedy system allows for the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports in order to better protect domestic producers from injury caused by unfairly dumped or subsidized goods, thereby ensuring a level playing field and fair conditions of competition for Canadian businesses and workers. The system also provides for the application of global safeguard measures in order to protect domestic producers from injury caused by surges of unfairly traded goods.
Duties are imposed following investigations by the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, or CITT, which are conducted in an independent, impartial and transparent manner.
The proposed legislative amendments in the bill are intended to achieve four main objectives. The first is to more effectively address efforts by foreign exporters or Canadian importers to circumvent anti-dumping and countervailing duties once they are in place. Second, the changes will better protect against potential surges or what are referred to as “massive importations” of unfairly traded imports at the early stage of an investigation prior to the application of duties. The third set of changes will increase access for trade unions by providing them with the ability to file global safeguard complaints. Concurrent policy changes are being introduced to provide them with the same rights for anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations. The legislative amendments would also ensure a greater consideration of workers’ interests by clarifying that the CITT assessment of injury to the domestic industry also includes impacts on workers. Finally, the proposed amendments would reduce administrative burden for all parties by streamlining the expiry review process for anti-dumping and countervailing measures. This is the process through which it is determined whether duties should be extended for five years after their initial five-year period of application.
These measures are being put forward following public consultations on these issues, which took place in the summer of 2021. Following the budget announcement, the proposed changes have received strong public support from Canadian steel producers, United Steelworkers and other manufacturers. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Winter.
Before I open the floor to questions, I remind members who participate remotely to use the raise hand button to be added to the list of questioners, which our clerk will manage.
[English]
I also wish to inform members that you will each have a maximum of only four minutes for the first round and this includes questions and answers. Therefore, I would suggest to members of the committee and to our witnesses today to please be concise, especially with preambles. We can always go to a second round if we have time.
So I’d like to recognize Senator MacDonald.
Senator MacDonald: I’m not ready to speak yet. Later.
The Chair: I don’t have any senators on the list yet, so if you would like to indicate your interest — Senator Harder, please.
Senator Harder: I have one question. I would like a little bit more commentary from the officials on the experience that Canada has endured that this is intended to fix. Give us some colour commentary. I can imagine it has something to do with steel and other imports, but I’d like to know the motivation. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Winter, would you like to take that one or designate someone?
Mr. Winter: I can take that. Thank you, chair and Senator Harder. As I indicated generally, the general objectives of the system are to protect domestic producers from injury caused by unfair trade — dumped and subsidized goods. As you indicated, steel is a sector of large concern given persistent global overcapacity over the last decade or more. In fact, the majority of measures that are in place in the system do pertain to imported steel products.
So this is not a new concern. This is something that has been around for some time. In recent years, we have seen a number of significant changes in global markets, which has exacerbated some of these concerns. In 2017-2018, there was the imposition of the United States section 232 national security tariffs and the distortions those caused to global markets. Since then, COVID has had disruptions on the markets as well, and, more recently, the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Over those years, the government has taken a number of measures already to strengthen the system and provide more resources for the enforcement of the existing system, and these changes are intended to build upon those changes as the markets continue to be somewhat uncertain.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here today as you work through a number of pieces related to this.
My question today is connected to cases and case backlogs and concerns cases before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal as a result of these changes. For instance, as a result of these changes, this provision will allow trade unions to file trade remedy complaints independent of their employer. While I welcome this change, can you anticipate that it will bring forward a possible suite of new cases to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal? If so, are more resources being allocated to ensure a backlog does not ensue or get bigger?
The Chair: Again, Mr. Winter, either you or anyone you would like to designate.
Mr. Winter: Thank you chair, and thank you senator for the question.
As you indicated, providing unions with the right to file complaints does increase access to the system and has the possibility to lead to more investigations and more operational pressures for the CBSA and the CITT. One important clarification to make, however, is that the right to file the complaint is being put forward and unions are able to bring that forward on their own; however, in order for the investigation to actually be launched, there’s still an assessment of support from the domestic industry that needs to be validated. That remains based on the support of domestic producers.
I think what we will see in practice is that where unions bring forward complaints, they will effectively be doing so in cooperation with or through fronting a complaint from domestic production. All that to say there is certainly a possibility of increased cases. This is something that we’re aware of and we’re going to continue to assess in cooperation with the CBSA and the CITT as the changes are implemented.
Senator M. Deacon: Why would a trade union need to step in place of their employer? I would suspect that in cases like this what is bad, or not great for the worker, is also bad or not great for the employer, given that it is about dumping and competition. Could any of you also comment on that?
Mr. Winter: What you’ve indicated in practice is likely what we will see. This will come. There is an alignment of interest in terms of bringing forward cases between the unions and the domestic producers. They’re both trying to prevent the injury that’s caused to domestic production in Canada by unfair trade.
That said, this outcome originates from proposals by the unions in Canada. They believe this is important as a matter of access to justice and fairness. The outcomes do bring us into alignment with the systems in the United States, the European Union and some of our other like-minded partners.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Do you want to go the second round?
Senator M. Deacon: No, I want to thank Senator Harder for asking my other question. Thank you.
Senator Woo: Thank you to the witnesses. The focus of anti-dumping and countervailing duties is about protecting producers and now taking into account the interests of the workers in those industries as well.
Can you tell us the extent to which you also take into consideration not only the interests of consumers but also the interests of importers of intermediate goods, for which these imports are vital as part of the value chain and producing finished goods in Canada that are perhaps exported or consumed domestically?
How are the interests of the larger consumer base and importers of intermediate goods taken into account in these fundamentally protectionist measures?
The Chair: Mr. Winter, I’m turning to you but it doesn’t always have to be you. If you’d like to designate someone else, you’re in good numbers today as witnesses, so please feel free to do so.
Mr. Winter: I think I can speak to this one from the policy level. An important distinction to make with respect to trade remedies and the Department of Finance’s role, and the Minister of Finance’s role in trade remedies, is that we establish the policy and the legislative framework for these measures where we do weigh all of these various interests, which I can speak to shortly.
The role of the CBSA and the CITT in assessing, in the context of a particular case, whether the factors set out under the law have been met, as I mentioned at the outset, is done in an arm’s length, independent manner. Some of the factors that you mentioned around impacts on consumers and these types of things, in terms of the case-by-case assessment, they are assessed on the basis of what is in the law.
At the policy level, we’re mindful of the need for a balanced system in Canada. As we assess these proposals, we take into account the underlying intent of the law, which is to protect domestic producers. However, we want to ensure that the proper balance is struck between ensuring access to supply for intermediate producers, as you said, and not unnecessarily overstepping our bounds in terms of protecting the market from unfair trade. We do weigh our WTO considerations in this context. We weigh reactions from trade partners and from domestic stakeholders.
Last summer, we conducted public consultations on these measures for that very reason, and we saw views from a range of stakeholders across the economy. We heard from manufacturers, consumer groups and intermediate manufacturers as well. All of these considerations were taken into account in the advice given to the minister reflected in these final outcomes.
The Chair: One minute, Senator Woo, if you have a follow-up question.
Senator Woo: Calling trade unfair doesn’t mean it’s unfair, in the same way calling trade fair doesn’t mean it’s fair. It’s a matter of empirical observation. I feel we should always resist protectionist or protectionist-leaning measures.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, Mr. Winter. Could you speak to how these measures compare to what is happening in other countries, in particular some of our major trading partners?
The Chair: Mr. Winter, you’re the go-to person. However, as I said before, if you’d like others to chime in, just say so.
Mr. Winter: Thank you very much, chair, and thank you for the question.
These measures are bringing our system into closer alignment with our key trading partners, including the United States. That is important in the context of our manufacturing economy given the strong supply chain linkages. To provide some examples, the changes that we’re proposing with respect to massive importations are similar in nature to the process that is in place in the United States; the changes on anti-circumvention are intended to align with certain elements of the U.S. framework; and the changes on unions, as I mentioned, are similar in nature to what is in place in both the European Union and the United States.
Senator Ravalia: Given the fact that we have significant issues with supply chains right now related to COVID, particularly with respect to motor vehicles, for example, and other hi-tech industries, is there a possible perception that, once doors open and the supply chains are restored, there may be a kind of dumping phenomenon as trade routes open up? If so, do we have countermeasures?
Mr. Winter: It’s difficult to speculate. Clearly, we’re in a disruptive period with the global markets right now. Overcapacity continues to exist in key sectors, and I think there is a concern that if some of these supply chain issues normalize, imports may start to enter the market before our domestic production is able to do so.
That said, the process remains complaint-driven by domestic producers, and it does go back to an empirical assessment of whether the conditions in the law are met. We’re not setting a framework where we’re going to slam on duties. The government is not going to do this on its own volition.
The domestic producers have to bring forward complaints to the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, or CITT, who will then assess whether dumping or subsidizing is occurring, in fact, and, subsequently, whether that is causing injury to the domestic industry. It’s putting a framework in place to safeguard against potential issues in the future.
The Chair: Mr. Winter, thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you for being here. How do the Canadian Border Service Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal investigate instances in which importations are being dumped or subsidized? I’m looking at practically how it is done. Secondly, how do they know through investigations whether these practices have caused injury to Canadian producers?
The Chair: I’m sorry, Mr. Winter, that might be a question for Mr. Borg, am I right?
Mr. Winter: I will defer to Mr. Borg and someone from the CITT, whoever would like to speak to that on their end, with respect to the injury assessment.
Sean Borg, Director, Policy Integration, Planning and Performance, Canada Border Services Agency: Thank you for the question and the invitation to be here today.
Simply, the process starts, as Mr. Winter alluded to earlier, with a complaint from the industry where they’re alleging that dumping or subsidizing is occurring. In the complaint, there are requirements for a substantial amount of information and evidence to substantiate the claim. We, then, investigate that through questionnaires, interviews and on-site verification of books to determine if the claim is, in fact, accurate. Then, we render a determination at the end of that investigation.
I’ll defer to the CITT on the injury aspect.
Frédéric Seppey, Chairperson, Canadian International Trade Tribunal: Thank you very much. I’m chairperson of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Taking it from where Mr. Borg left it, once CBSA has issued a determination, it’s up to the CITT to then assess whether the dumping or subsidization of imported goods has caused injury to the domestic industry. We do that by seeking information from the industry through a questionnaire we send to them. We produce an investigation report, which is produced by the secretariat to the CITT, and then, we conduct hearings to hear the evidence presented by both those who support either the anti-dumping or subsidization or the countervailing measures and those who are opposed to it. To refer to what Senator Woo made reference to, these may include importers, producers of intermediate goods and consumers.
In that context, we’ll hear the evidence presented before us through hearings, a process of exchange of information and hearing witnesses. The tribunal, which on these matters is composed of a panel of three members, would assess, according to the injury factors that are specified in both the Special Import Measures Act and associated regulation. There are detailed injury factors that we have to assess and take into account in making a determination.
If we reach the conclusion that there has been an injury, then this confirms that the determination made by CBSA will result in anti-dumping duties or countervailing duties. If, to the contrary, we find that the injury is not evidenced, if we find there’s no injury, then there’s no duty that is either imposed or renewed in the context of a renewal of measures.
That’s essentially how the process would operate once CBSA has finished its part.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Seppey and Mr. Borg.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses. My question is also along the lines of anti-dumping. Division 9 of Part 5 amends the Special Import Measures Act to require that expiry reviews of all anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders and findings can be conducted without needing to first issue a notice of expiry. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this amendment?
Mr. Winter: Thank you for the question, senator. I’ll give a bit of context in terms of how the process works. As you indicated, the amendments will require that an expiry review of all orders or findings be initiated in all cases without the need for the CITT to issue a notice of expiry review prior to that.
Currently, the CITT issues this notice, which is called an expiry notice, to interested parties in order to assess support for the conduct of a subsequent expiry review. Effectively, what takes place is they conduct a review to determine whether a review is warranted. In practice, these cases proceed to an expiry review in the vast majority of cases. These amendments are intended to eliminate that step and reduce the administrative burden for all parties. The CITT will, as well, be provided with the authority to terminate that expiry review if it’s subsequently determined that there is no support from domestic producers to go ahead.
Basically, this is an administrative-burden reduction. It received strong support during the consultations not only from producers in Canada but also from importers and other participants in the proceedings.
Senator Oh: How do you collect information about what is considered anti-dumping? How is this information being collected? Who is it coming from mostly?
Mr. Winter: I will defer to either the CBSA or the CITT for this question. I’m not sure if you’re asking specifically in the context of the expiry review, which you mentioned, or more broadly.
Senator Oh: More broadly.
Mr. Winter: I’ll make a general comment and then defer to others. Producers, when they believe that dumping or subsidizing occurs, bring forward a complaint to the CBSA to start the investigative process. There are a number of factors outlined for which they need to produce evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. Then, it’s up to the CBSA and the CITT to validate that information through their respective processes.
I’ll see if they want to add to that.
Mr. Seppey: Perhaps Mr. Borg can start, given CBSA comes first in the process, followed by Mr. Gallo.
Mr. Borg: Mr. Winter summarized it quite well. Most of the information is generated from the parties involved in an investigation. First, the complaint is received from the producers alleging dumping or subsidizing is occurring. The package that is part of that complaint contains a lot of qualitative and quantitative data that our experts analyze. Then, we reach out to the parties involved to receive similar information to be able to adjudicate on the complaint. The information comes from those that are involved in the marketplace. I hope that answers the question, senator.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Greg Gallo, Director of Investigative Services and Chief Economist, Canadian International Trade Tribunal Secretariat: Thank you, senator, for the question.
I’ll briefly add to that. It’s a similar process for us. We gather data through questionnaires sent to stakeholders, domestic and foreign producers, importers and purchasers. We also get party submissions, witness statements, requests for information and hearing testimony, which all go into the decision that the panel members of the CITT make.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My question is for Mr. Winter.
Last year, the Department of Finance conducted a consultation on measures to strengthen the trade remedy system to make it more accessible to businesses, particularly SMEs. One of the lessons learned from this study was that improved access to the trade remedy system was needed for small and medium-sized enterprises.
I’m an entrepreneur, so I know how heavy the administrative burden can be. What provisions in this legislation will simplify access to the system for small and medium-sized businesses?
[English]
Mr. Winter: Thank you for the question. You rightly pointed out that the consultations last summer included a proposal to create a dedicated trade remedy counselling unit within the Canada Border Services Agency to provide support to businesses navigating the trade remedy system, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, given the inherent complexity and cost of participating in these proceedings.
The budget, in addition to the legislative amendments discussed today, announces dedicated funding for the CBSA to create this unit, which will, as I said, help interested parties — particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs — work through the system and help them with the preparation of complaints, submissions and these types of documents. This is not discussed as part of the legislative package because the legislative amendments are not required to implement that outcome.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: May I ask another question?
The Chair: Certainly.
Senator Gerba: Have you identified any challenges that small and medium-sized businesses face when they want to use the trade remedy system?
[English]
Mr. Winter: I would say, very generally, that this is a complex and costly system and does require legal representation to make these claims, which, in some instances, as you can imagine, does make it more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises.
That said, we have seen a number of new cases over the past year coming from non-traditional users of the system, including SMEs. We are hopeful that the unit that is intended to be created coming out of the budget will provide greater awareness of the system and support for these companies to use it further.
I will ask if my colleague Ms. Cantin if she wishes to elaborate on that question.
[Translation]
Marie-Hélène Cantin, Senior Economist, International Trade Policy: I think Mr. Winter did a fine job summarizing the main issues facing SMEs. Filing complaints, among other things, is a barrier for SMEs. The new unit we want to create would help SMEs to formulate complaints, gather all the data that is needed, all the information needed for anti-dumping and countervailing complaints.
In addition, importing SMEs can sometimes be subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duties on their imports. The unit will be there to help them better understand the system and why duties apply on their imports, but also whether any remedies are available; sometimes, there may be product exclusions under certain conditions, so the unit will be able to help them understand the remedies available to them.
As you mentioned, we held consultations and the main difficulties that SMEs pointed out had to do with their ability to file complaints and go through the whole anti-dumping and countervailing duty process, which is long and complex. In addition, some importers are subject to duties but don’t always understand why the duties apply and what their remedies are. The unit we want to create directly addresses those concerns.
Senator Boehm: Thank you for your responses, Ms. Cantin.
[English]
I would like to thank our witnesses very much for their commentary today. We were enriched by that.
Colleagues, we will move to our second panel of the day to discuss Division 18 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, which relates to the Lunar Gateway.
In December 2019, Canada signed a treaty with the United States of America to enable Canada’s participation in this small space station that will orbit the moon. Implementing legislation is required for Canada to respect its legal obligations under the treaty.
To discuss the matter, we welcome, from the Canadian Space Agency, Jason Wood, Executive Director, Space Exploration Policy, and from the Department of Justice Canada, we have Erin Cassidy, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section.
I believe Mr. Wood will deliver opening remarks on behalf of our two witnesses. Please go ahead, Mr. Wood. You have the floor.
Jason Wood, Executive Director, Space Exploration Policy, Canadian Space Agency: Thank you for the invitation to appear here today.
With respect to Division 18 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, as mentioned by the chair, in December of 2019, Canada signed a treaty with the United States to enable Canada’s participation in the Lunar Gateway, which is a small space station that will orbit the moon. Canada’s contribution to this partnership includes Canadarm3, a cutting-edge smart robotic system.
The Lunar Gateway represents the next phase of space exploration, and this treaty secures a number of benefits for Canadians, including our ability to advance innovative technology and conduct pioneering science. The treaty also provides flights for two Canadian astronauts to the moon, including a historic mission with the U.S. on Artemis II, which is the first human mission to the moon since 1972.
Implementing legislation is required for Canada to fulfill its legal obligations under the treaty. Division 18 of Part 5 would establish the civil lunar gateway agreement implementation act to protect confidential information shared under the treaty. This division would also amend the Criminal Code to enable Canadian prosecutions for conduct committed during a space flight related to the Lunar Gateway that would be an indictable offence if it was committed in Canada.
It would also enable Canadian prosecutions for other conduct, including that committed during a space flight on or in relation to the Lunar Gateway where the conduct would be an indictable offence and involve threats to Canadian crew members or effects or damages to Canadian flight elements.
Lastly, the division would also amend the Government Employees Compensation Act to implement the cross-waiver of liability that is contained within the treaty.
Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wood. We’ll go straight to questions.
Senator MacDonald: I have always been fascinated with space exploration since growing up with the Apollo and Gemini programs. I find it so interesting that Division 18 is put in the Budget Implementation Act.
According to the provisions, Division 18 would essentially extend Canadian law to space, and anything that would be illegal in Canada would become illegal on-board spacecraft travelling to the Lunar Gateway, on the gateway itself or on the surface of the moon.
In 1998, the parties involved in the International Space Station signed an agreement giving them criminal jurisdiction over their own citizens beyond the space station. Is it correct to assume that we have been in sort of a legal limbo on this issue for the last 24 years? If so, why are we suddenly pushing this into the Budget Implementation Act?
Mr. Wood: I’ll respond to the question with respect to the connections to treaties that were mentioned, including the Lunar Gateway treaty. I’ll defer to my colleague from the Department of Justice Canada if there are matters with respect to criminal law policy that should be remarked upon.
There are existing legal obligations for Canada based upon treaties negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations with respect to maintaining jurisdiction and control of our elements in space. So irrespective of the agreements with respect to the International Space Station or the Lunar Gateway, we have those obligations. With respect to the International Space Station, because we put specific Canadian elements in space, criminal jurisdiction was extended to cover those activities and elements as well as crew.
We are simply taking the same approach here; our extension of jurisdiction follows our activities. Our activities are now being extended to the Lunar Gateway and the lunar vicinity. We committed, under the Lunar Gateway treaty, to maintain jurisdiction and control over those elements and crew, so we are making adjustments to the Criminal Code that are necessary to extend jurisdiction to cover those elements. I’ll now defer to my colleague.
Erin Cassidy, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you.
I would clarify that Canada did introduce Criminal Code provisions in 1999 specifically in relation to the International Space Station. As my colleague from the Canadian Space Agency indicated, the current proposed amendments are simply to extend provisions to the Lunar Gateway initiative.
I hope that clarifies the situation. Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I would like to just make the point that I think many Canadians would view this as maybe a bureaucratic priority but that it doesn’t have a lot to do with the real challenges facing Canadians. My understanding is that there are four active astronauts in the space program today, so we are not anticipating that they are going to commit crimes — I would hope.
My understanding is that the Lunar Gateway will not launch until 2024; is that correct?
Mr. Wood: With respect to the intent of the provisions, they would not only apply to Canadian astronauts but they would also allow Canada to prosecute individuals who committed acts against those astronauts.
With respect to the timing of the launch of the gateway, it will be launched incrementally in components and assembled in space. The Canadarm3 contribution from Canada is expected to be launched in 2027, but the initial components are expected to be launched in 2024.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being with us today.
I’m trying to think about the surprise of discussing space in committee. We don’t have many opportunities to talk about the civil Lunar Gateway. My question might be a little bit extended — I hope you’ll oblige me — but I didn’t think we would be discussing space law at committee.
We signed this Lunar Gateway treaty with sights on getting to the moon, and I wonder if there are any protections within this for protecting the moon as a piece of human heritage. No other object has remained so unchanged for the entirety of our human history, and while I believe we have an agreement that no country can claim it, is there anything stopping us from divvying it up, mining it or changing its features in such a way that will spoil it for future generations who gaze upward?
We have seen what we have done to the surface of the Earth in the span of only a few decades. Are there any agreements stopping us from doing the same to our companion satellite?
Mr. Wood: Thank you for the question.
There are a couple of elements I would point out. The first is specific to the Lunar Gateway treaty itself, and that is about biological planetary protections. There is a specific article in the treaty that speaks to this. There is the Committee of Space Research, COSPAR, which has the Planetary Protection Policy, a specific policy and implementation guideline that Canada, the United States and the other Gateway partners have signed up to with respect to planetary protection, biological planetary protection specifically.
Those are commitments of all of the parties as part of the partnership to implement those guidelines to protect the lunar surface or any other aspects of space that we may encounter as part of the Lunar Gateway activities.
The second thing I would mention is that the Lunar Gateway is part of a larger project being led by the United States called the Artemis program. We had the Apollo program in the 1960s and 1970s. This is now the Artemis program. One of the elements, as part of the Artemis program, that is being considered is a document called the Artemis Accords. Canada was one of the original signatories of these accords. It is a non-binding agreement. It speaks to various elements, including preserving outer space heritage, so we have also signed up to principles and guidelines around protecting outer space heritage.
There are the biological protection elements in the Lunar Gateway treaty itself, and then there are the principles we have agreed to follow in terms of preserving outer space heritage. Those are non-binding guidelines, but they do exist and reflect the commitment of the partners.
Senator M. Deacon: To follow through with that and to touch a little bit on what Senator MacDonald was saying, we have this outer space treaty from 1965 that is 55 years old. Have there been discussions around that treaty work and the language of that treaty? Will that have to be looked at again?
Mr. Wood: There are other treaties negotiated around that time, such as the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects and others. Those continue to apply. The effects I mentioned earlier about requirements to maintain jurisdiction and control stem from those treaties.
There are discussions as part of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, given the activities we are seeing, such as the increased number of actors in space, both governments and commercial actors, about what the appropriate rules in space should be.
One of the things Canada was involved in as part of that UN committee was the negotiation of long-term sustainability guidelines. Those are guidelines; they are not yet legally binding obligations, but we see those and the Artemis Accords as first steps in looking at how we might codify those obligations into binding requirements.
The Lunar Gateway treaty itself is binding on the parties, and we are beginning to incorporate some of those elements into those binding requirements. In the future, we could see treaties negotiated under the auspices of the UN related to space. That’s a long-term process, but one that Canada continues to participate in as part of that UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Mr. Wood and Ms. Cassidy, for being with us today.
Mr. Wood, you spoke about innovative technology and pioneering research. I wonder if you could give us a sense of the nature of the pioneering research we are expecting to take place and the technologies we are looking at.
Then I have a couple of follow-ups.
Mr. Wood: Briefly, in terms of scientific and technological aspects related to the Lunar Gateway partnership and what building a space station around the moon allows for, it allows us to get a deeper understanding of the possible health effects of cosmic radiation and solar storms on astronauts living and working outside of Earth’s protective magnetic field. It provides us access to the lunar surface to conduct cutting-edge science. It is a unique setting for technology demonstrations, as well as to observe stars, the sun and Earth.
That’s the brief version, I suppose.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
I just have two brief questions to follow up on that. Do we have Canadian private-sector interest engaged at this point in this initiative, and do we have Canadian universities?
Second, what is the expected lifespan, if there is such a thing, for this overall project?
Mr. Wood: Thank you for the question.
In terms of commercial involvement, Canadarm3 will be developed and produced by the private sector. That contract has already been awarded. That company will be working with a supply chain that involves other companies throughout Canada.
In terms of private-sector interests on the development of the gateway itself, those certainly exist. Those will be responsible for generating approximately 600 jobs and about $71 million annually to Canada’s GDP. That reflects the commercial side of things.
In terms of the science and the involvement of Canadian scientists, be they universities or research institutions or otherwise, there certainly is the opportunity for Canadian scientists to participate. The science program on the Lunar Gateway is currently in development, so I’m not able to provide specifics in terms of who exactly would be involved. Certainly, our experience on the International Space Station indicates there will be ample opportunity for those researchers to be involved in that science.
Senator Coyle: The lifespan? I had asked a question about the lifespan of the overall initiative.
Mr. Wood: There is no specific lifespan that has been defined for the gateway.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses. The memorandum of understanding signed by Canada and the United States concerning the cooperation on the civil Lunar Gateway indicates that the gateway will be used for a variety of purposes, including to facilitate commercial activities in deep space. I was wondering if you might be able to outline to us some of the envisioned activities that will take place Thank you.
Mr. Wood: Thank you for the question. Similarly, in terms of my response with respect to the state of scientific work on the gateway, the commercial activity that may take place on the gateway has not yet been defined. I can provide examples potentially from the International Space Station that would help provide an understanding of what that might be. In the context of the International Space Station, we speak of not only the exploration benefits that would arise but the scientific, societal and economic benefits of those activities. Operating in a microgravity environment and developing these technologies provides for a unique environment in which to develop them.
If we think about Canadarm2 technology on the International Space Station, that’s very precise robotic technology developed for space purposes. It has now been repurposed and spun off into surgical activities, so precise neurosurgery that can only be done with instruments of that nature, more precise than can be done by the human hand. Because the nature of space and the environment of space provide such a harsh and unique environment, we’re looking at the opportunity to develop technologies in a microgravity environment that could be then spun off back on earth for commercial potential.
Senator Ravalia: There is already a fair amount of commercial activity that’s going on, SpaceX’s Starlink program, for example. Do you perceive that there may be potential that there will be a competition between the private industry and this particular program that we are looking at in the long term?
Mr. Wood: I’m not in a position to speculate necessarily on what may happen in the future. If we observe what’s happening in low-earth orbit, there are several companies that are working with governments in looking at developing low-earth orbit space stations, so not around the moon but in orbit around the earth. We see that happening today. With respect to the moon, it is really a project that governments are on the leading edge of. I don’t see in the foreseeable future something specifically of that nature. Having said that, I hesitate to speculate on what the future might bring.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much.
Senator Boniface: Thank you for being here. My question probably is for Ms. Cassidy. I’m curious around the indictable offence, as opposed to a criminal offence including summary conviction. I’m wondering when you envision this, what types of offences were you thinking of, and why is summary conviction left out? Is that because that’s what the agreement calls for? Perhaps you can enlighten us.
Ms. Cassidy: Thank you very much for the question, senator. Indictable offences because these are the most serious offences. These are not specified in the agreement, I should start with. If we are going to bring a prosecution for a situation such as this, it would likely only be in an instance of one of the more serious offences. We have not speculated on what that might look like. It is also worth noting that in the Criminal Code many, if not most offences, are hybrid offences. They can be either summary or indictable offences. That means it could be a broad range of offences that would be caught by this. I hope that answers the question. Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Just as a follow-up, I understand the distinction in criminal law. I wonder what the impetus is. Is it because it is required by the agreement, or is it because there are certain circumstances that have taken place that have led you and the government to believe this was necessary?
Ms. Cassidy: If the question relates to why the government decided to assert criminal jurisdiction in the first place, that is because the intergovernmental agreements — the agreement relating to the International Space Station — provides for states to assert criminal jurisdiction over their nationals. Canada did enact that obligation as it related to the International Space Station.
Since the gateway agreement also provides for states to assert criminal jurisdiction, to be responsible for their crew members and their nationals in particular, Canada is doing the same in the case of the gateway to be able to hold our crew members accountable in the event of wrongdoing. Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Senator Boniface just asked my question, but I’ll ask it slightly differently just to get it in. It doesn’t have to be a long answer. Have there been any infractions in the space station that would necessitate this new legal precedent, or are we worried, as space gets more cluttered, this might happen in future space exploration? Either witness could answer this, please.
Mr. Wood: Thank you for the question. I’ll provide a brief response and invite my colleague to add anything she may want to add. The genesis of these amendments and the purpose is really to be able to fulfill our legal obligations under the treaty. It is not driven by particular practical scenarios that have arisen in the practice of the International Space Station or any other space mission.
Ms. Cassidy: I would simply add that we aren’t aware of any instances either. So simply to reinforce my colleague’s answer. Thank you.
Senator Richards: Yes, I didn’t think there was. I wanted to clarify. Thank you.
The Chair: Did you want to follow up on anything, Senator Richards?
Senator Richards: No, I’m fine, Mr. Chair.
Senator Greene: If under Artemis the moon will become a base for future missions to Mars, are we expecting the possibility that Canadian law will be extended to Mars?
Mr. Wood: As I mentioned earlier, our intention from a policy perspective is to ensure we are able to meet our obligations with respect to any agreements we have signed on a mission-by-mission basis. It is foreseeable that Canada and other countries may venture out further into the universe, potentially leading towards a crewed mission to Mars, but I can’t speculate at this time in terms of what the nature of the agreement would be and what that would mean for Canada’s criminal jurisdiction. I’ll invite my colleague to add something, if necessary.
Ms. Cassidy: I would like to add some precision there. Canada has not, and is not by these proposed amendments, asserting jurisdiction over the moon. We wouldn’t propose to assert jurisdiction over a planet because there is not sovereignty in space. By these proposed amendments and, in particular, in relation to the reference to activity on the moon, we are asserting jurisdiction over crew members. That jurisdiction is linked to individuals, humans. I just wanted to add that precision. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. We have no other senators on the list who would like to ask questions. On that basis, I would like to thank our two witnesses for helping this committee broach the final frontier today. We appreciate your commentaries very much. As there is no other business, colleagues, the meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)