WTO Trade Policy Review of Canada
Statement of Mr. LI Enheng
Minister & Deputy Permanent Representative,
Permanent Mission of China to the WTO
(21 March, 2007)
Mr. Chairman:
We are pleased to participate in this trade policy review of Canada. This is the second time for China, as a WTO Member, to participate in the review of Canada. I would like to join the previous speakers in welcoming the Canadian delegation headed by Mr. Salembier, Director General for Multilateral Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and Ambassador Stephenson, Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of Canada here in Geneva. I take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat and the Canadian government for the tremendous efforts they made for the review. We would also extend our thanks to the discussant, Ambassador Matus, for his insightful observation on the trade policy of Canada.
Canada has been an active player in the multilateral trading system. Since the launch of the Doha Round negotiations, Canada has submitted many proposals in a wide range of areas. We particularly appreciate Ambassador Stephenson for his wisdom and devotion in steering the NAMA negotiations of the Round. It is our belief that Canada will continue to play its constructive role in the negotiations.
Mr. Chairman, China is glad to note that, in recent years, Canada has experienced a continuous annual economic growth of 2.5%-3%. We welcome the outward-looking orientation of Canada’s trade regime. As the Secretariat report puts it, this regime helps explain Canada's good economic performance during the period under review.
China and Canada have enjoyed a sound and mutually-beneficial economic and trade relationship in recent years, and have been important trading partners to each other. In 2006, Sino-Canadian trade reached 23.2 billion US dollars, an increase of 21% over the previous year. Canada is China’s eleventh largest trading partner, and China is Canada’s second largest.
While encouraged by the rapid development of Sino-Canadian economic and trade relationship, we also want to see improvements in Canada’s trade policies, particularly in the following areas.
The first is on trade remedies. Canada’s laws and regulations regarding trade remedies set relatively low thresholds for the initiation of investigations, grant the competent authorities too much discretion in the investigation process and place little burden on the petitioners to provide evidence, leading, in the countervailing measures for example, to easy conclusions of the existence of so-called “subsidies”. China hopes that, while seeking to use trade remedy measures based upon sound legal and factual ground to protect its domestic industries, Canada will do its utmost to avoid that these measures are used for protectionist purposes so as to create fair environment for competition among traders.
Second is on TBT and SPS measures. We understand that technical regulations, standards and SPS measures are legitimate means to protect human, animal and plant health. But some of these regulations and measures imposed by Canada have gone beyond the extent necessary. For instance, as Ambassador Allgeier of the United States already pointed out in his statement, Canada imposes very strict requirements regarding the size of the package for fresh vegetables and fruits. These requirements are excessively complicated and have added heavy burden to exporters of these products, thus creating unnecessary barriers to trade of those products. We hope that Canada could review requirements of such nature to facilitate normal trade.
Furthermore, many Chinese companies have complained of the difficulties they face in applying visas and working permits, which have affected their business and investment activities in Canada. We hope that efforts could be made by Canada to alleviate such difficulties.
Finally, we wish the trade policy review of Canada a success.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
