Agriculture Committee on Nov. 9th, 2017

[Tom Rosser]

Certainly information related to this analysis is in the public domain. There have been some efforts to update and refine it. I believe as well that my colleagues in Environment and Climate Change Canada have done some analysis in this domain that reached similar general conclusions, although it was a different methodology and specifics.

Yes, we're certainly happy to supply information. We do have information that we can share. An update of this analysis is under way. I'm not certain if it's ready for publication yet, but our intent would be to make it publicly available once it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Barlow, you have two minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to take the last two minutes for the motion that I tabled at that last meeting. I want to discuss that briefly and hopefully have a vote on it. I can read that motion into the record.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food undertake a study of the renewed Trans-pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and take into consideration of the opportunities available to the agricultural sector given the withdrawal of the United States from the trade deal; and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

I certainly feel with today's developments, this is quite timely, due to the fact that we may or may not have signed an agreement. I know we're not exactly sure. We've heard yes and no. Regardless, I know this was studied previously but that it was a significantly different study. Also, the United States was part of the initial TPP agreement, but is no longer a signing or founding member of the agreement.

I think it's certainly worthwhile for us to take a look at it. I'm assuming that my colleagues from all parties have had similar conversations to ones we have had with our stakeholders and producers, who are eager to be part of this agreement. They see this as a greater opportunity for Canada, with the United States out as a member, and they want us to move on this quickly. I think this is a great opportunity to listen to our stakeholders, do some work on this, and find out what the opportunities and possible obstacles would be for Canada to be part of the TPP without the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Is there discussion on the motion?

Mr. Peschisolido.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Chair, I think once again that Mr. Barlow is right that Parliament should be looking at this. The TPP is a very important possible trade agreement. It has a variety of stakeholders involved on a lot of issues.

I'm not sure we're the proper committee and forum to look at it. We do have a trade committee. We do have a foreign affairs committee, so even though I support what Mr. Barlow wants to do, I don't think it's the role of our committee to do just that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Berthold, it is now over to you.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Peschisolido.

I heard what you said about the committee not being the right forum to do a proper study. The government is in the midst of extensive consultations and is receiving numerous requests regarding the food guide. We are being told that this committee isn't the right forum to discuss the food guide and that it's a Health Canada matter. We are the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, though. We have to stop being afraid to talk about issues that affect the people who feed Canadians.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is of great interest to Canada. It is important not only for trade, but also for grain, dairy, beef, and poultry producers. It's a deal that matters tremendously to all the Canadian farmers and processors we represent. They want access to that market, which, as we all know, is vast. That is all the more important given today's news that India is imposing new 50% tariffs, a devastating blow to Canada's agricultural industry.

We mustn't close our eyes. We have to listen to our producers and give them the opportunity to be heard. The very role of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is to give Canadian producers the chance to speak to the members of Parliament on the committee. In each of our parties, we were chosen by the people to represent their interests on this committee. We should hear what they have to say and include their recommendations in a report, which would then make its way to our parliamentary colleagues, including the ministers responsible for trade negotiations, international trade, and global affairs.

Unfortunately, we learned that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will not even be at the TPP talks next week. As far as I know, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food under the previous Conservative government always took part in those talks.

It's important that our committee send a clear message to Parliament and the government: agriculture must figure prominently in the negotiations. We cannot behave as though products come ready-made and ready to go. Our involvement is all the more essential given that, according to its most recent budget, the government intends to significantly expand Canada's agricultural production in the coming years. The objectives are ambitious, and one way to achieve them is for producers to have access to new markets.

We do, however, have to overcome a major TPP challenge: a key player has backed out. The negotiations that took place involved 12 countries originally and no longer necessarily apply to a TPP deal between 11 countries. The concessions that were made in the context of a 12-country TPP may not apply to the negotiations for an 11-country TPP. If the committee does not seize this opportunity for Canadian farmers to have their say, I can't see who in Parliament will.

That is why I urge my fellow members to think seriously about allowing the committee to discuss the TPP as soon as possible and to hear what producers and members of the agrifood industry have to say about it.

I haven't been on the committee for the past two years, but I believe it has already looked at the issue of the TPP. Have you examined it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I believe so.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That's what I thought.

[An hon. member]

In 2016.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay, that was in 2016. In that case, it would simply be a matter of doing an update on the study to take into account the current situation.

I can't see what we're doing here if we let others speak on our behalf any time an issue that affects agriculture and agrifood stakeholders comes up.

I therefore humbly ask my fellow members for their co-operation in getting this motion passed so that we can discuss TPP 11 as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Longfield, you may go ahead.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I apologize to our witnesses. I'm looking forward to discussing the important study we're doing right now on soil and climate change. We're in the midst of looking into the negotiations with the TPP 11; we're not in the midst of negotiations on TPP 11. We're also working on NAFTA. The timing of our looking at this study would be very premature. As Mr. Peschisolido also said, there are other committees that might be participating in this, so I wouldn't support this at this time. We could talk about this in future business or at another time. When we have witnesses here who are willing to contribute and have travelled distances, I think we should continue the discussion with them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Ms. Trudel, you have the floor.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to this motion, I would like to point out that the renegotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is under way. Originally a deal between 12 countries, it now involves 11. As we know, the TPP poked a hole in our supply management system, a 3% market share, in fact. I think we need to hear from our dairy producers and assess the adverse effects that hole could have. Having the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food hear what they have to say is not only relevant, but also timely.

Yes, the issue we are studying now is a very important one, and we will continue that study. Given, though, that the negotiations are happening as we speak, I think we would do well to hear from dairy producers on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is something we could be proud of.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Trudel.

It is now over to you, Mrs. Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Good afternoon.

I agree with the member. I, too, am new to the committee, and I must say how surprised I continue to be at the lack of co-operation that seems to prevail. We are talking about things that are happening here and now. If we put this off another five months, it will be too late.

At some point, we have to know when to make allowances. This isn't a partisan issue. We are talking about a situation that is unfolding as we speak. The U.S. withdrew from the deal; this is a discussion we have to have. What is the point of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food if its members always remain silent to the detriment of the constituents they are supposed to stand up for? What purpose do we serve if we can't give ourselves the latitude to have this discussion?

I'm not used to this. I am accustomed to the high level of co-operation on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As members, we are occasionally confronted with issues we would prefer not to deal with, on both sides of the House, but we do it anyways because we have to rise above partisanship.

This is not about partisanship, but every time we put forward a motion, as government members, you dig in your heels. To be perfectly frank, I must say I find it unsavoury.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mrs. Boucher.

Your turn, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I do want to thank the witnesses for being here, but I will point out that we have two hours to hear from two witnesses. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to take a few minutes to deal with this issue, especially since we heard today that the TPP discussions seem to be moving quickly.

Second of all, it was said that the committee should not study the matter because negotiations are in progress, but if we wait until they are over, it will be too late. By the way, the department was in the midst of extensive consultations on Canada's food policy when the committee decided to undertake its own consultations on the same subject, at the same time. That didn't factor into our decision. It didn't prevent the committee from undertaking its own study. As far as I know, the committee makes its own decisions. It does not have to wait for instructions from the government or the minister's office. Unless I'm mistaken, the committee is entirely independent.

Consequently, we can choose to conduct this study and to give Canadian producers and agrifood industry stakeholders the opportunity to tell us what they think. We can also choose not to hear from them. It's in your hands, since there are more of you. Clearly, if you choose to give witnesses and producers the opportunity to speak, we will hear from them, but if you don't, we will not.

That's all we have to say on the matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Over to you, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'd like to make something clear to the committee.

Mr. Berthold, we already agreed that we would go through the subcommittee. Less than two weeks ago, we reached a consensus on the committee's agenda. Even though the issue is making headlines today, the Minister of International Trade's commitment to engage in talks with the TPP's 11 members is nothing new. It wasn't something that was all of a sudden.

If you wanted the committee to deal with this issue, perhaps you should have proposed the idea at the subcommittee's last meeting. That didn't happen, however. Since we had already come to an agreement on the agenda for the study, we aren't going to abandon the timetable all because this issue happened to feature in today's headlines. That's all we have to say on the matter.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments by my colleagues across the way. However, the fact that we have an agreement, or a potential agreement, that will have an impact on every single Canadian farmer and producer in the country—

You're shaking your head, Mr. Longfield, but you're not willing to take five or 10 minutes to discuss an agreement that could possibly impact every producer, because you're worried about the two hours that we have with our two witnesses.

Mr. Drouin, I really do appreciate what you're saying, but you're saying that we can't disrupt this committee's schedule because a very critical issue, a very vital issue, came up today. You're saying, let's not discuss that because it's not part of the agenda we decided on weeks ago.

Come on, you guys. When something important comes up, that's what we're here for, to discuss these types of issues that will have an impact on our producers, our farmers, the agri businesses, and agrifood across the country. If we are continually passing on every study that we think is important, or you think is important, to another committee because it's not our job, then what are we here for? Seriously, what are we here for, other than saying that it will take up two hours of your day for no reason?

You guys cannot dispute the importance and the impact that the trans-Pacific partnership agreement is going to have on the Canadian agriculture industry. For us to say that we are not going to discuss it because it's not on our agenda that we discussed a couple of weeks ago.... This is critical.

Moving forward, what is the message? Is it that if any other critical issue comes up that will impact Canadian agriculture, if it's not something we put on our agenda months ago, it's not worth talking about? That's not the message I want to send to our stakeholders across the country, that “I'm sorry, this is something that's going to impact your livelihood, but it's not something that we have on our agenda for the next couple of weeks and it's not something that I want to take 10 minutes out of a two-hour committee meeting to discuss, because I don't think it's worthwhile.”

I want to leave that with you. I'm not trying to make this political. I know you guys have had the same discussions with your stakeholders that we have had with ours. The importance of the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, positive and negative, is something that our stakeholders are asking us to discuss, want us to discuss. With what transpired today, we have an opportunity now for a timely and very good discussion on what direction the trans-Pacific partnership agreement is going to take and the impact it's going to have on our stakeholders.

For my colleagues to make this about our already having set our agenda and upsetting the officials who are here for two hours is really disconcerting. I have to ask, are these key issues a priority for you guys or not? For us to not do this study is disappointing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Sorry for the rant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

We're ready to move to a vote on the motion. You all have the motion. It has been distributed in both languages. Could I have a show of hands as to who would support the motion?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

May we have a recorded vote?