Evidence of meeting #2 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Okay.
As I understand it, the old NAFTA remains in effect until this agreement comes into effect. Trade still happens. Is that right?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
Yes, that's how we understand it. Until the new agreement comes into force, the old one will apply.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
No, but I heard the comment by the head negotiator during the previous presentation that if one of the three parties should delay, the other two could implement the new agreement bilaterally.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Okay.
If the ratification of the agreement went well, there would only be relatively normal delays and there would be no major inconveniences.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Perfect.
I have another question for you. I don't know if you're aware of this issue, because it doesn't affect your industry directly, although it may affect agri-food, Ms. Citeau, but I don't think so.
Reference was made earlier to limiting export of milk by-products to countries other than signatory countries. Despite the fact that your industries aren't directly affected this time, it was mentioned that it was an unprecedented extraordinary provision and that it was like a surrender of our sovereignty in this area. Aren't you concerned that this will affect future negotiations?
Historically—as we've seen in supply management and generally in the American attitude—from negotiation to negotiation, we try to eliminate things in order to make more gains.
What is your position on this? Are you concerned that this clause will ultimately harm our industries?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
Thank you for your question.
Our mandate is to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers for our sectors. We speak on behalf of the sectors we represent, and not for others.
Generally speaking, we do not look favourably on rules and provisions that seek to restrict exports for our sectors and reduce their access to markets, be it product exclusions, tariffs, restrictive rules of origin, quotas or sanitary and phytosanitary measures. This makes sense, since our goal is the elimination of all such barriers.
This provision seems unusual, but what we understand is that it applies specifically to the supply management sector and poses no risk to our sectors, which are export-oriented.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Proctor, in terms of fruits and vegetables, are there any protections or provisions in the agreement that you would have liked to see improved? I'm thinking in particular of the reciprocity of standards governing the use of crop-protection products, pesticides and so on. Is there anything you would have liked to see in the agreement?
I'm thinking of Mexico in particular, but it could also concern the United States.
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Issue Management, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
Obviously, for us, the whole issue of maximum residue levels in pesticides and the lack of registration, for example here in some of the changes we're seeing.... If we had a trilateral registration process, obviously that would be ideal. Our producers certainly are not penalized, but they suffer because sometimes the market just isn't large enough for a company pursuing a registration, say, in the U.S. We've seen that in the past.
Now, with the path forward around registrations occurring across borders, that's obviously very good, but there are lots of products now that are under pressure within some of the reviews that are occurring, and we know there is going to be a review of the pesticide act coming up, so, obviously, those kinds of differences become very problematic.
There are other things like, for example, our organic standards, which are very similar, and there is a tremendous amount of alignment in these standards, etc., but any change makes a significant difference.
One thing, at least for our industry—
4:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Issue Management, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
That's okay.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Welcome to our witnesses. It's good to see a lot of you again. I know we've met quite often over the last two years. It's good to be back at this standing committee talking about the issues that we all care about.
I understand, of course, from all three of you, that there is a great desire to see this agreement implemented as quickly as possible, and our committee is working under a pretty strict timeline. We only just, at the last committee meeting, received the invitation from the chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade requesting our committee's recommendations and any suggested amendments.
If I'm reading the room right, given your study of the particular clauses that this committee is concerned with, sure, there may be room for some improvement, but you're generally pretty happy with the way they are.
I want to change tack a little bit. The problem I've had, and indeed the problem my party has had, with the way trade deals have been negotiated is that when we, as a legislative body, receive the implementation act, it's basically a fait accompli. That's why I find the other chair's invitation for us to suggest recommendations or any amendments problematic, because, of course, if we were to suggest any amendments to the act, that would require Canada to reopen negotiations.
We are essentially, as a legislative body, faced with a final product and a yes or no. Negotiating a trade agreement, of course, is a royal prerogative of the Crown, and as a legislative body, we're always trying to find ways to get more involved.
I'd like to hear from each of you going forward, because we know there are some significant trade negotiations that are coming up with South America and possibly Canada and the U.K.
My colleague Daniel Blaikie, on the international trade committee, brought up the issue—and it was confirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister today—about how the government is now going to notify Parliament of an intention to start trade negotiations 90 days in advance. We will now get a statement of our objectives in those trade negotiations, and now we're going to get economic impact statements tabled with the implementing legislation. I think this is a great win for all parliamentarians because it gives us a role like the ones the U.S. Congress and the European Union have, to be there from the start so that we feel like we've had some proper input.
I would just like to hear from each of you your thoughts on those proposals. I think that, as a committee, we don't really have a lot of latitude with this particular agreement. There's a lot of pressure to get it done, and I certainly understand the concerns out there with the uncertainty south of the border.
I'll let you start off, and then we'll go down the line.
4:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
Thanks very much for the question.
I think it is an interesting opportunity to have more transparency and involvement in our trade negotiations going forward.
One thing I would highlight is that what we see south of the border is a comprehensive listing of the trade barriers faced by industry in various markets that is put out by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. In Canada, we have no similar transparency around the trade barriers that we face. In agriculture, there are hundreds of barriers the industry has identified that are outstanding, a number of which are between Canada and the U.S., or between Canada and Mexico.
Providing more transparency on the barriers that industry is facing and how those barriers should and can be addressed in trade agreements, I think, would be a great step forward for Canada, and we would benefit from the transparency that you're outlining.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
If I might add this, perhaps it would be also worthwhile to have some sort of follow-up once the free trade agreements are implemented—in recent years, Canada has implemented large free trade agreements, like CETA and CPTPP—to do some follow-through as to how the implementation is going. CETA has been implemented for over two years, but access for our sector remains elusive as a result of non-tariff barriers, so perhaps that might be something to look into as well.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Issue Management, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
Obviously, for us, any additional consultation, any additional opportunity for more voices to be heard, is welcome.
I don't even know if I would characterize it as a caution, but the one thing that I think all of us at this table, and probably any of the associations, would want to make sure of is that there will be individual concerns that all of you will hear, as individual MPs, and that's a great thing, to have that opportunity to get that consultation within your jurisdictions, within your ridings.
I think it's going to be important that we have a way to ensure that the industry, which is addressing and identifying these concerns day in and day out, has a process by which we can reconcile all of this, so that it doesn't become a one-off situation where a very specific issue might be raised that might not be as big a concern for the industry as a whole, etc.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-Chair, Grain Growers of Canada
Yes, I'd echo those remarks.
I would say that anything for the grain sector that expedites trade, makes it more transparent and moves some of these trade deals along is nothing but a win for the grain sector.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Okay, I'm close to the end of my time, so I appreciate your feedback on that.
Thank you very much.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks again to our witnesses for being here. I know it's a tight timeline to dive into a trade agreement of this magnitude.
We are sending a letter, from the witness testimony we get today, to the trade committee.
Claire, I know you talked about some issues on the sugar beet side. Can you just explain in a little more detail what that concern is on the export side with sugar beets?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
I cannot explain in detail because this is really highly technical, so I would defer to the sugar sector, but I understand that the concerns have to do with export controls. It's essentially the way the quotas and the access to the U.S. markets, and other markets, are administered for our sugar and sugar-containing products.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thank you.
I guess one thing that we have heard was maybe missed through this negotiation was the economic impact analysis on some of these things. As my colleague Mr. MacGregor mentioned, this is maybe going to be done on the next trade agreement. We've asked for access to the documents that were part of this and we've been denied that.
I'm just curious. As the process went on through the negotiation of the new agreement, was there any access for your user groups, or stakeholder groups, to the economic impact of CUSMA?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy and Issue Management, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
Certainly for our sector, we put a lot of effort, of course, into understanding what the economic impact would be if NAFTA was thrown out, if we didn't go forward. We made those figures and that information available at every opportunity we had, whether we were meeting with the negotiators or meeting with senior civil servants, or what have you. There would be nothing in it, I don't think, that we wouldn't want to share.
