Agriculture Committee on Nov. 26th, 2013

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Very good, thank you.

Let me also pursue the line of questioning about GM products. I want to clarify, of course, that the EU does accept GM product, but for things like animal feed. There are really two questions there.

Again, based on your viewpoint as CropLife, feedstock can now be GM and Canada can now export GM to Europe for feedstock and there’s sort of a low-level presence type of policy, that, of course, you're right, we're bravely trying to negotiate with some of our key trading partners. Do you see those two initiatives as being an advantage under CETA to Canada and to our farmers?

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Yes, I think it's going to be more good news for our farmers. Then when there may be some sort of technical aspects of misunderstandings or disagreements between the regulators in the EU versus Canada, we have a much stronger venue to have those conversations, because it will be enshrined within this agreement. So we see it as really helping the conversation.

Those conservations are going on already in other aspects, but I think having that agreement between the EU and Canada is going to be hugely beneficial.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much and I'll now go to Mr. Eyking for five minutes, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you for coming here today.

You people may realize right now the Europeans are banning our seal products over there and now we have to go to the WTO to get them back into the EU. We just hope as we go down this road with the trade agreement that with all of our agricultural products we're hopefully going to sell over there we're not going to be hit with those. We've given up quite a bit with this trade agreement. We've given up cheese, and some of our pharmaceutical prices, and some of the local content and infrastructure.

My question is on dealing with the negotiators when they were hammering out this deal. You stated there was an assessment process the Europeans have and that we're going to be working more in conjunction with them, but when they're assessing whether our food is compatible or safe, they could throw up pesticides, hormones, or plant pathology, and we mentioned GMOs. When this deal was being hammered out—and in every deal you're giving up something, you're getting something—do you think the negotiators should have had something a little stronger in there?

You mentioned this five-year revolving door, and the worst thing that can happen is we send products over there and they're rejected by consumers, or farmers, or whatever. And they might be safe and they might be part of the agreement but that's not going to help our product when it's sent back. My question is do you think the negotiators should have hammered out a more ironclad system so that we're not going to be discouraged from everything we send over there?

[Dennis Prouse]

I could open it and just say we understand, and our members clearly understand, the difficulties just in speaking about biotechnology towards trade with the EU on biotech issues. It's difficult. Our expectations were extremely modest. There is a working group and there is the science-based regulation, one that we're particularly fond of, as you know. We'll hold onto that as a victory. Would we have liked more? Absolutely, in any trade negotiation you would like more.

But in recognizing just how challenging those issues are in dealing with the European Union, we'll grab that and we'll hold onto that, and we'll see if we can build on that success. It's baby steps when it comes to these issues.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

You're talking about science and scientists and everybody agreeing, and the negotiator agreeing, all agreeing that beef, pork, whatever product should be coming into Europe, but many times you're dealing with emotion, which is not science-based, so you get farmers and you get consumers....

Do you think we're going to have to have an action team or something from the Canadian government that's going to help us promote and explain our products over there and help us to show how we grow? With climate change and things like that, if we have to grow different types of varieties, it's not a monster product that we're sending over, it's a product that's adapting to climate change or whatever. Do you think we're going to have to do it as a government or do we have to rely on the commodities to do the selling job for their products over there to say that we're safe and they should be confident with our products?

[Dennis Prouse]

I know the grower groups are all doing that already. They log an awful lot of time on airplanes and spend an awful lot of time in Asia, in Europe, selling their products and telling their stories.

We're also mindful of the fact that there is a market access team at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that is hard at work on these very issues. They have a market access day every year and they invite stakeholders like ourselves and other grower groups there. Every year I'm struck by how difficult their job is and how glad I am that I don't have their job. It's difficult. These trade issues, as you're understanding, are tough to deal with. But I'm confident that the market access team has a pretty firm hold on what the challenges are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

You have 25 seconds.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

But do you think we need to step up our game because we're in Europe? It's quite different from China. I'm not saying they're more knowledgeable, but more sensitive to technology. Are we going to have to be able to step up our game when we're into Europe?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

A very short answer please.

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

That's very short. Thank you very much.

Now we will go to Mr. Hoback, for five minutes, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, witnesses, to the agriculture committee today on such a great topic called CETA.

One of the things I want to start off with is UPOV 91. We're talking about looking at that here in Canada. I believe the EU has already signed on to that policy. Can you confirm that?

Do you see that helping to establish more research here in Canada, and in Saskatchewan in particular?

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

I'll have a go at that one. That's a little bit outside of our expertise. Certainly, our colleagues in the Canadian Seed Trade Association have lots to say about UPOV 91.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

But even on the research side rather than the chemical side.

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Right, what we're talking about here are avenues for effective intellectual property protection and plant breeders' rights, which is what you're speaking to. This is one particular tool to help with that.

The thinking is that the current Plant Breeders' Rights Act in Canada is out of date. It's based on the previous UPOV and it would be beneficial for research, for farmers and so on, for Canada to update ourselves as a country.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You talked a little bit about clouds on the horizon, and I guess that's very true. Things are changing in Europe right now. The way they go about subsidizing their farmers is changing. Their focus is going off the bigger farms now onto the smaller farms. The high-intensive mechanized farming is receiving smaller subsidies and smaller pieces of the pie.

I guess those clouds that are on the horizon are on the horizon whether we do this deal or not. Is that fair to say?

[Dennis Prouse]

That's extremely true. That was going to be an issue, regardless. In fact, I should clarify my opening statement in that CETA at least provides an avenue and a structure to talk about these issues, so it's a net plus.

Those issues that I discussed, which we have raised with international trade and with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we've put out there, but there is no question that those would be there regardless of CETA. In fact, CETA could well help in smoothing them.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I used to work with Flexicoil and then Case New Holland in Europe and we had some research farms. The homologation process for Canadian equipment going into Europe was amazing—there was no process. If you had a dispute with them, it was basically taken the way they said it was and that's the way it was.

With this trade agreement, you'll have a dispute settling mechanism where you'll at least have a process to go through to settle the differences you may have. That would definitely be beneficial, would it not?

[Dennis Prouse]

That would be extremely beneficial for us. We always have the mantra of rules-based trade. What is rules-based trade? Agreements like this are rules-based trade. That's why we welcome it and it's why we would welcome the Trans-Pacific Partnership as well.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, that comes back to rules-based or science-based trade. That's one way to head off politicians getting in the way of what are true food safety issues. Instead of a political issue getting in the way and saying, “We're not going to allow you to bring this product in” you can actually push back through this process and say, “No. Based on science, this is safe.” Is that fair to say?

[Dennis Prouse]

Yes, absolutely, that's our assessment as well.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

I think I'll leave it at that. I really wanted to highlight that the clouds are on the horizon, no matter what happens, and that we need a process.

The other thing I'd sum up with is that, coming to Canada, there is access to the U.S. market and now the European market. For international companies such as the ones you represent, it must be very attractive to think of the low tax base we have in Canada, and the great educated workforce we have here. I would think you'd be locating a lot more resources here in Canada.

[Dennis Prouse]

We're excited about the future of Canadian agriculture and we think our members are as well.

I answered the question from Mr. Lemieux earlier talking about the growth in canola. One of the things I didn't get a chance to touch on is how many more research facilities have come up in Canada in the last decade. Some of them have been based in Saskatchewan and some in Manitoba, and we've seen some in Ontario. We've seen some significant investments in research. I think that's a pretty strong statement in support of the potential for Canadian agriculture.