Evidence of meeting #51 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was provinces.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
That's a very good question. No one has approached the produce industry for a checkoff program at this point.
The produce industry isn't structured for a levy system domestically in Canada. It's fragmented. It would be very—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Yes, I appreciate that. I come from the Christmas tree industry, and there is nobody more fragmented than we are —
5:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
—but we did manage to put a checkoff system in place.
5:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
In our investigation, we spent years looking at the various tools and models. At this point, for all the tools we looked at—bonding, pooling, checkoff programs, creating agencies—we determined that they were high-cost tools with a high administrative burden. On the reality of having to create new entities to solve a problem, that problem could be solved with no cost and no administrative function through a legislative change, and that always came back to be the best solution. On this, though, on linking back to how we need to work and why this is such an important aspect between the provinces and the federal government, there are two key pieces here. We need to ensure on the bankruptcy side that it's there, and insolvency—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I appreciate that, but I'm running out of time and I have a couple of points I want to raise.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I appreciate what you're saying; however, other sectors don't have it. Bankruptcy protection is really an industry lead, not an agriculture lead, but other sectors don't have it. If you sell a perishable product, such as a Christmas tree, to someone in Ontario and that company goes bankrupt, after December 25 it's no good to you. You can't get it back, and you have no protection whatsoever. I just wanted to put that out there. It is a problem and it is not totally resolved.
To Mr. Dahl, the whole issue with the non-science-based approach to agriculture is more than problematic; it's dangerous. It's dangerous to the sector and it's dangerous to the future of our economy. What I'm a little bit shocked about is the situation, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, with the neonicotinoids in Ontario. My understanding is that in other provinces that's been addressed mainly through dust management, when the seed is actually put into the ground, and you therefore have a lot less bee kill or bee damage. In Ontario they are saying that on the one hand they are not going to allow neonicotinoids, and on the other hand they have a real tight regime on beekeepers. If you live in suburbia you can't keep bees. You can't keep bees within 70 feet, I think, of a property line. That effectively eliminates a lot of little hobbyists who would perhaps keep bees, which are of huge assistance, the spark plugs of agriculture.
I think there is a disconnect there. Have you kind of pushed back on that?
5:10 p.m.
President, Cereals Canada
I can't comment on the regulations around beekeepers, because I simply have no knowledge on that.
You are correct when you note that the agriculture industry itself has moved to ensure that there are best management practices in place to limit potential impacts. Yes, that is something that agriculture as a whole has undertaken. Again, it underlines the need to have a national approach and a way of ensuring that we have national regulations.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Mr. Lemaire, you used the example of apples crossing the border from Nova Scotia and being shipped to B.C., and a phytosanitary certificate keeping them out. How prevalent are these phytosanitary certificates for interprovincial trade?
5:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
They exist for regulated areas, for potatoes; they also exist for apples, as we talked about for B.C. My colleague from the west noted the need for sound outcome-based science and risk-based analysis. We have to ensure that we're doing that at a provincial level and are not impacting our own internal trade without it.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you very much.
We'll move to Mr. Allen, please, for five minutes.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you, Chair. Thanks to all our witnesses.
Mr. Dahl, let me start with you on the issue of PMRA and the Ontario example you used. I want to use a different frame, from the perspective that the decision of the Ontario government is theirs to make. We may not like it, we may not agree with it, but it's their decision to make. It's like land use. Municipalities actually have bylaws for land use. In this province, the Progressive Conservative members are actually up in arms about wind turbines because of land use and the fact that the province decided to take over the municipal bylaw aspect. I think what you're asking us to do is to federally take over the regulatory regime that says to the province and municipalities, “Thou shalt not do this, because we think it's science-based”. I think that's a tough nut to crack, but not a bad idea.
Let me just ask you, what does the fact that it may put them at a competitive disadvantage have to do with interprovincial trade? I still grow corn in this country—in this province, for instance—and I can't use neonic. I don't use it on my corn. I can still ship my corn, can't I? Does that affect my corn, except for maybe the competitive disadvantage for me?
February 19th, 2015 / 5:15 p.m.
President, Cereals Canada
It's the competitive disadvantage.
But you raise an excellent point that we're not asking provinces to give up their right to come forward with regulations or legislation.
What we are suggesting is that the Agreement on Internal Trade provides a vehicle for the different jurisdictions in Canada to come to an agreement on a science-based approach to these issues to ensure that we don't have that patchwork. Because a patchwork of differing regulations across the country is going to limit internal trade. It is going to limit investment, not just in those regions where differing regulations might have come into effect but across the country because it increases the regulatory risk in Canada.
There is a vehicle for jurisdictions in Canada to come to an agreement on how to resolve these issues and to ensure that, while provinces have the right to come forward with their own regulations and legislation, there is a national approach in place. I believe the Agreement on Internal Trade is that vehicle.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
I appreciate the suggestion.
I come from municipal politics. It was my background to start with. There are a lot of municipalities across this country that would say to the province, “Actually, leave me be; thank you very kindly”. Never mind the province saying to the feds, “Leave me be”.
But that is an interesting approach. You have to start somewhere with some of this stuff. I agree that a patchwork doesn't help the industry. I fully agree with that. The issue is how we get there with literally three layers of government. In fact, if you have regional government and municipal government I believe you have four, so good luck on that one.
Mr. Lemaire, let me get to you on the issue you touched briefly on of container sizing and what impact that has. Can you give us an overview? I know you did the clam shell thing for blueberries, but can you give us another example of what can be an impediment when it comes to container size and interprovincial trade for fresh produce?
5:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
Looking at apples, looking at potatoes, as examples, shipping in bulk containers to reduce cost and repacking in another province to be able to manage quality, to manage the requirement for the pack in that province with the customer you're selling to, trying to manage those costs as opposed to packing and shipping in perhaps not the most cost-effective, efficient manner with the smaller pack sizes is one of the bigger challenges around the container size.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
When you talk about repacking, walk me through that, and we'll use apples. You sell in bulk. Are you sending this to a repacker before it hits the retail, or are you sending it to a retailer who is repacking it and selling it on the store shelf?
5:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
No, it would be a repacker in another province that would be repacking those apples to meet the brand requirements or—
5:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
That's right, in that province.
5:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
Currently the requirement is a ministerial exemption to ship a larger size if the product is not available in that province.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you very much, Mr. Allen.
I'll now move to the last questioner, who will be Mr. Payne, please, for five minutes.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I don't know how much time I have but hopefully I'll get—