Agriculture Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, ladies and gentleman, for coming today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have a minute and a half for everything, Frank, so ask one question this time.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

All right.

During the committee's travels across Canada this spring, which you're aware of, the vast majority of the witnesses questioned the rationale for importing products grown or raised with pesticides or drugs not approved here in Canada. Among the many things that were compromising or that were a threat to the competitiveness of our agriculture industry, that seemed to be among the top three or four.

I know that we've looked at this. We've talked about it so many times around this table, and I think a number of us around this table, regardless of party, are concerned about the lack of harmonization and consistency. I know that our previous report recommended that the government undertake a study of this issue. I'd like to know if you are undertaking that study. If not, why not? And what do you plan to do about it to help our farmers?

[Rita Moritz]

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I can start with the answer to that question. In partnership with Health Canada, we have done a significant amount of work already with our pest management centre and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which actually does approve the pesticides for use.

There are two programs that are run within the pest management centre of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

The first one is the minor use program. Within that program, we've made over 275 submissions to PMRA on behalf of growers, resulting in over 530 new users. These are prioritized with the growers at the table every year, who actually tell us, by voting on them, which of these commodities and pesticides are the ones hampering their competitiveness the most right now.

Secondly, internationally, PMC does work with the USDA on the IR-4 group in order to get the two agencies to accept each other's science, with the view that we would ultimately like to have one or the other do the science and have both countries accept it, which would then again put our growers in a much better position in terms of a level playing field.

Also, the second program we have is the pesticide risk reduction program. It also involves regulatory submissions in order to use new pesticides. We have submitted 18 bio-pesticide regulatory submissions to PMRA and 114 new bio-pesticide uses. In some cases, pesticides are registered in Canada, but they're not registered for use on all of the commodities that growers would like to use them on. So not only do we register for use of the pesticide itself but also for the different commodities to help those growers who have those commodities use the pesticides.

About 163 projects now have been focused on developing and implementing these pesticide-reduced risk tools, so we have made considerable progress in this area. It is recognized by the horticulture—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

And how about drugs?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Frank, your time has gone way over, so let her finish.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

All right.

[Rita Moritz]

Yes. I'm speaking to pesticides and horticulture and those that are used on the crop side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Ms. Block, for five minutes.

Just before we go on, if any of the committee members around the table want to attack each other, you're here to defend yourselves, but I'm not going to allow anybody outside that isn't here to come up. I'm going to cut you off. I just want that to be clear.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, does that mean when the minister quotes people as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

The minister isn't here--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, no. It happened previously. I want to know for future engagements. If the minister quotes a third party who is not here, like the CPC or the CCA or whoever, does that same rule apply?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

There's a difference between quotes and attacks. I'm just going to leave it at that.

I think, Mr. Easter, that if anybody should know the difference, you should.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

A point of order, Mr. Chair, for clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

There's a distinct difference between quoting somebody and attributing their direct quote to their intention and quoting somebody and putting the words of somebody else in that person's mouth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I agree. I think that's what I basically just said.

Ms. Block, five minutes.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you as well to our officials for appearing here today.

I am not a regular member of this committee, but as a member from Saskatchewan who is representing a fairly large and diverse rural riding, I am very pleased to be here, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about what our government is doing in the area of agriculture.

Over the past two years, I have taken many opportunities to meet with cattle and pork producers from my riding and from across Canada, and in fact, with many provincial and national organizations. I've been told that COOL continues to harm cattle and pork producers throughout Canada. I want to make it clear--our government has made it clear--that Canada will fight to the bitter end to make sure that the United States removes unfair COOL restrictions.

In a recent edition of the Canadian Cattlemen's Action News, on September 27, 2010, the CCA outlined the steps from their perspective on the WTO trade panel and the progress our government is making. They said, “The U.S. made little attempt to refute the Canadian economic analysis”.

It seems that we are indeed on the right side of this issue. I'm wondering if you can give us an update on the status of Canada's WTO challenge to COOL.

[Greg Meredith]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

The COOL legislation is particularly damaging to the hog and cattle sectors because they were so integrated. It has effectively taken away significant markets from our producers. Since the beginning, since the 2002 farm bill, we've been fighting this rule. Together with provinces and in working groups with industry, we have been undertaking some significant advocacy work in the U.S., both at the state level and at the national level. Those efforts proved ineffective. Last November, we asked the WTO to establish a dispute settlement panel.

In September we had the first hearing. I can't report on our arguments there, but you've heard one interpretation. We think we're on the right side on this issue. There's another panel in December of this year, where we will be mounting further arguments. What we hope for is a speedy resolution and a speedy reaction from the panel. That should come to governments sometime in June, with a final report sometime in July.

So we're not looking at an immediate resolution in December, but at another seven to eight months, unfortunately. After that, there are several paths that can occur in terms of resolving it. The United States could accept and implement a positive ruling that would allow access and effectively neutralize COOL. They could appeal, in which case we're looking at a resolution some time in 2012. Or they could refuse to implement a positive recommendation, in which case, there's opportunity both for Canada and for Mexico, frankly, to undertake steps towards damages against the U.S.

Unfortunately, that's not a story that anyone really wants to hear. We'd prefer a much swifter resolution, but we've also had signals from the U.S. administration that their intention is that if there's anything to change, it would be in a 2012 farm bill, which is not fast enough for us.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You still have about a minute, if you have anything else.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

On that note, just in terms of this prolonged process, what impact will that have on our cattle and pork producers?

[Greg Meredith]

Well, they continue to suffer the impact of lower prices for their product, largely because the processors in the United States have to undertake different measures, like segregating lines, in order to adhere to the COOL rule. As soon as they do that, there are much higher costs, and they either don't buy from us where they used to, or they discount the prices.

There has also been a very significant impact on the wiener market because there's an extra cost on the feedlots, on the feeders, so effectively, if that rule stays in there, it would be very difficult for us to regain the markets. Also, the markets that we do regain will be at discount prices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Bonsant?

Mr. Bellavance, five minutes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to the issue of imported products. We can clearly see that there are more and more imported products sitting beside Quebec and Canadian products on grocery shelves. I know that the representatives from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are going to tell me that I am wrong. We raise this issue every time at this committee. These products are not always subject to the same standards. The people who work out in the field, who work in the agricultural sector, are constantly telling us that they know that some products used in other countries and which are not accepted here, nevertheless cross the border and enter Canada. Every time we raise the issue, people from the agency tell us that they conduct inspections using equivalent standards. This discussion will continue occurring because the people who work out in the field, and here I refer not only to producers but also processors, are always telling us that certain products enter Canada without adequate control, such as products derived from foreign crops that have been grown with the use of chemicals.

We are becoming increasingly more concerned about the quality of our food. The ramifications of listeriosis have given us tremendous pause for thought. Certain aspects of the Weatherill report may be starting to have an effect, although the impact has not been enormous. In 2009, the Market Access Secretariat was established by Canada to promote agricultural exports. Today, the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec has come out in favour of this decision to open up markets for our producers. However, the UPA is wondering whether or not the Market Access Secretariat should not also be tasked with ensuring the reciprocity of standards for goods that enter Canada. It seems to me that this should be a two-way street. If we want to sell our products to other markets, it is clear that we will have to respect certain standards. Conversely, the agri-environmental rules of the other countries should correspond to ours, so that we can ensure that the food is safe. We need to have clear, straightforward and precise certification norms for food safety, biosecurity, specific risk material and so on and so forth. According to the UPA, it is now time to have..., and if the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is unable to ensure the safety of imported products and the respect of Canadian standards, these responsibilities should be given to the secretariat or some other entity.

I would like to hear your views on the matter.