Evidence of meeting #61 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was seed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Director, Government Affairs and Policy, Canadian Seed Trade Association
From the seed side, no, because seed is one of the most imported, exported, and re-exported commodities. To this point, issues have more been around specific commodity types. We've never gotten into the COOL debate on our side, thankfully.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank the witnesses for their participation on this important study.
I think it was last week that we talked again about PACA. I've been on the committee for a few years, and we talk about it often. There were commitments, I think from all parties, during the election campaign. After the election there were more commitments and promises.
As a committee, on certain issues we all find common ground and we recognize the importance of agriculture and we can work together on certain issues. I know we sent a letter to the minister for support of a PACA trust, asking him to act. If I'm not mistaken, last year the Minister of Agriculture said he had to talk with the Minister of Finance. He was at our committee a little while ago and said he couldn't say anything unless he contacted and talked with Minister Navdeep Bains.
I think the Minister of Agriculture needs to take a lead on this issue. It's really important. We've talked about it long enough. I know you have been very patient, and farmers have been very patient. I don't know what the committee could do to send a stronger message. I don't know what is blocking. I think what it comes down to is leadership from the agriculture minister.
I wonder whether I can get some more comments around the frustration and the urgency to get something in place, because this has been studied, it has been talked about, and I think we need action. We need something. Can I get some more comments around this subject, please?
12:40 p.m.
Chair, Trade and Marketing Committee, Canadian Horticultural Council
As you know, we've been doing this for more than a decade. This time it was put in RCC, and then it was pulled out of RCC. We thought we had it made when the announcement was made in 2011 that the President and the Prime Minister said they were going to do it.
It's as simple as this: we want our farmers to be paid. Some of us about 10 years ago started this process, long before the RCC, because there were issues within Canada of some unscrupulous people not paying. They paid you for a while and then didn't pay you at all. We wanted legislation in place that would correct this situation.
Additionally, the Americans have been hounding us forever that they need a reciprocal system, because we've been treated like American farmers since they put the PACA trust in place in the U.S. They got a little ornery about this, because we were going down the road of putting a position in place and then we withdrew it.
As you know, a few years ago they therefore took away our preferential treatment in the U.S. To enact PACA now, we're just like any country in the world; you have to put up clear bonds to do it. You can complain to PACA, but to implement the whole PACA within the United States, you have to put some real money up. Most of the time you have to put up real estate or assets that are clear.
When you start thinking about that in any business, nobody is clear; they always have a bank or somebody behind them. They can't do that, so they can't use the PACA trust in the United States right now, truly, or most people can't. Most people don't go that far because they can't make it happen.
It's beyond me why it stopped. This is simple. We're not asking for money from the federal government. We never have.
12:45 p.m.
Chair, Trade and Marketing Committee, Canadian Horticultural Council
No, it doesn't cost anything. Just put the process in place. All the government will possess is the legislation, and then we can use the legislation. It's not like we want money from the government. We want enabling legislation for us to go forward and get paid. It's as simple as that.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
We haven't had any government legislation before the agriculture committee. I think this would be great. I am not quite sure who would be responsible, the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Finance, but maybe the Minister of Agriculture could take a lead on it. It would be nice to have this come through to committee, because we've heard it time and time again. To have it actually realized would be amazing for farmers and for the industry as a whole.
I wonder if we could have some comments on interprovincial trade. I was going through the CHC website. There was mention of a problem with cherries from Ontario going to B.C., some phytosanitary concerns. Could you talk about those issues across Canada, if there are any problems?
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Horticultural Council
As you said, it's a phytosanitary issue. It's the movement of any cherries from Ontario out of the province. As I understand it, it's not going to affect cherry growers in Ontario very much. There's not much of that happening. What it does mean is that, in order to export to the U.S., any cherry grower in another province, for example B.C., has to make sure that they have it on their labels that the product was produced in that province, just so the U.S. knows that it doesn't have the pest that Ontario has, Rhagoletis cerasi.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
When we send our negotiators to negotiate trade deals.... Mr. Carey, you said you really liked the agreement that was done in the TPP, about low-level presence. When we head to the table to negotiate trade deals, do you think we should try to deal with these potential non-tariff trade barriers at the outset, instead of trying to deal with them after the fact?
We have multiple problems, again, with CETA, which are hopefully going to be resolved.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Ask your question quickly, Ms. Brosseau, if you want an answer. We're out of time.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
When we head to the negotiation table, should we try to get these issues resolved, instead of waiting until after the fact? Is it possible?
12:45 p.m.
Director, Government Affairs and Policy, Canadian Seed Trade Association
Yes, absolutely.
That's also why we prefer the multilateral, so we can do a one-off. I think the TPP was a big step forward toward addressing non-tariff trade barriers at the outset.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Carey.
Thank you, Ms. Brosseau.
Now we go to Mr. Peschisolido for six minutes.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd also like to thank the witnesses for coming here today.
If you'd like to follow up on Madame Brosseau's question and answer it, please feel free.
12:45 p.m.
Director, Government Affairs and Policy, Canadian Seed Trade Association
I would just say that, for the first time ever, a low-level presence policy mechanism was included in the TPP. There was also a process whereby biotech approvals have to be transparent. They also recommended an agriculture trade committee, so that if there is an issue, there is a process to deal with it. There was also the idea of equivalency. It just shows that, as we progress through time, trade agreements get more sophisticated. I think the TPP, in a multilateral setting, would have solved at the outset a lot of the non-tariff trade barriers that we face with those countries.
I guess CETA is an older agreement, and maybe that speaks to some of the reasons why.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
One of the most chilling and perhaps insightful comments I've ever heard about was during an international class at the University of Toronto. Henry Kissinger said that if you want to control countries, you control their pipelines; if you want to control people, you control their food supply.
We are discussing here international trade deals. We are dealing with countries—the United States, China, the EU, and the individual countries in the EU, such as Germany and France—that probably deal with their geopolitics in a very important way. That may change now with President Trump. However, when you are dealing with countries like that, does that become a factor? Are these issues where you look at the geopolitics, the relationships among countries on a grander scale?
12:50 p.m.
Director, Government Affairs and Policy, Canadian Seed Trade Association
Absolutely.
Dominic Barton's report has been talked about a lot at this committee. He talked about living in China, and he said that there was never a concern unless there were food shortages. That's when there really was concern.
Geopolitically, I think there are a lot of politics around GMO, whether you're for it or against it. There have been a lot of opportunities where member companies of ours internationally have tried to introduce something like a drought-resistant corn crop into sub-Saharan Africa, and then with pressure from some interest groups—I won't name any—they've encouraged the locals to actually burn those crops. We definitely see geopolitics at play.
We've talked about how we have to feed a growing world, 2050, and how we have to produce more food than we ever have. It definitely is, and it's a shame when we have some member companies that just can't afford any longer to try to bring in biotech crops for planting to the EU. Some of the biggest companies in the world are no longer in that playground.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
There's this great new series called Incorporated. I'm not sure if you've seen it, but it's basically the year 2070 with climate change, and the governments have collapsed, and there are these two big corporations. They're seed companies, and they deal with food. There's a red zone and a green zone. What they basically do is try to control the food supply on either side. This popular culture follows up on Mr. Shipley's comments that there is science, and then there is political science. What we discuss here is not really what is out there in popular culture. Even in countries that have regimes that don't have to get re-elected, they still have to be concerned about what their people think.
How do we, as a trading nation—and we do want to get into these other countries—deal with these perceptions, or can we?
12:50 p.m.
Director, Government Affairs and Policy, Canadian Seed Trade Association
I think the one advantage that Canada has is that our regulators are respected worldwide. We have some concerns with PMRA, but PMRA is among the other two or three pest management or pesticide regulators in the world that are actually respected for their science as well as our agriculture. I think more Canada abroad is a good thing, and having the financing to make sure folks like PMRA, CFIA, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada can be in those markets for the support of our trade missions around the world.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Horticultural Council
To add to that, Safe Food for Canadians and the CanadaGAP process that we have also demonstrate the quality and the safety of Canadian food, so that's part of Canada brand. Again, we do need the institutions to support that, and PMRA, CFIA, and Agriculture Canada are critical for that. They need to be strengthened.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Forth, you mentioned in your presentation the role of anti-dumping rules and how they impact our producers and farmers. Can you elaborate a little bit on that?
12:50 p.m.
Chair, Trade and Marketing Committee, Canadian Horticultural Council
Yes, the biggest concern probably is that there will be low-quality products somewhere, and they can't sell them where they are, so they dump it into Canada, and it just ruins the marketplace. Where we're selling top-quality stuff here and lower quality, lower price product comes in, most of the time it will be sold for the same money or a little bit less as ours, and it will displace ours in the marketplace. That's why it has to be somewhat controlled, otherwise—they call it anti-dumping for a reason—Canada will become a dumping ground.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Carey, you talked about three types of seeds: organic, conventional, and biotech. Can you elaborate a little bit on the ratios and the significance of those?
12:50 p.m.
Director, Government Affairs and Policy, Canadian Seed Trade Association
Right now in Canada, the only biotech crops that have really been commercially available are canola, almost all of it; corn, the vast majority; and soybeans. It was higher, but there's actually an increasing market for non-GMO soybeans for Asian markets. The only other GM crop that exists, but it hasn't been fully commercialized yet, is an alfalfa. Conventional would be wheats, oat, and barley. Organic has been a niche, but it is increasing.
