Agriculture Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Good morning, colleagues. Let's get this started.

We have some committee business we need to address before we get into the testimony from our witnesses here today—a couple of things left by our chair, Mr. Blois.

The first one is this. We have a group of representatives from the U.S. House of Representatives' ag committee. They are going to be visiting Ottawa on Tuesday, October 22, and Wednesday, October 23, after we come back from the Thanksgiving constituency week. This will include Chair Michael Burgess of the House Committee on Rules—a representative from Texas—and Representative Michelle Fischbach from Minnesota, who is also on the House Committee on Rules. They will be accompanied by a few staffers. We have invited them to meet with us during our regularly scheduled committee time.

To make that happen, I need us to unanimously approve a motion to have that meeting.

The motion would read:

That the committee meet, in an informal meeting, in camera, with a delegation of members from the U.S. House of Representatives during the week of October 21, 2024; and that the committee defray the hospitality expenses related to this meeting;

Basically, it's saying that we will meet with them and that we will cover the cost of that meeting.

Are there any concerns, colleagues? Is there unanimous consent to do that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you.

There's one more piece of business.

I haven't had a chance to speak to Mr. Cannings, but the chair and I spoke briefly over the last few days. There is an issue with Bill C-280 in the Senate. It was unanimously supported by this committee and 337:1 in the House. The chair, the NDP and I thought it might be worthwhile sending a letter to the Senate trade committee reinforcing the fact that this was unanimously supported by this committee. We have done a lot of work on that private member's bill, and it was strongly supported in the House. We thought we would send a letter reinforcing this committee's message.

Mr. Perron.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with your proposal. I also suggest that a letter be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade regarding Bill C‑282. I think you follow the news. This bill is dragging its feet and is being kept in committee deliberately by a few individuals. I think that the elected members of the House must send clear messages when a bill is passed. As you said, only one person voted against Bill C‑280. In the case of Bill C‑282, 78% of the members of the House of Commons voted in favour.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

The only caveat is that Bill C-282 did not go through this committee. Bill C-280 did go through the agriculture committee. That is the only difference.

If the Bloc wants to do that, you'd probably get support to do it. You may want it to come from the trade committee. I believe it went through that on the House side. That would be my only comment on that.

Are there any concerns?

Mr. Drouin.

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

I agree on Bill C-280, but I'm also supportive of Monsieur Perron's suggestion that we should also include Bill C-282 in that. I think it's no secret that, obviously, we've had lots of supply-managed stakeholders come before committee in the past. It's related to ag. I think our ag committee should be united, in terms of putting pressure on the other chamber to pass the bill, as it is the will of the House. I'm supportive of Bill C-280 and Bill C-282.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thanks, Mr. Drouin.

I think the move from here is asking the analysts to do up that letter and bring it back to us as quickly as possible. Maybe we'll have two letters, or do we want that as one?

Mr. Steinley.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Bill C-282 went through another committee. I understand it for Bill C-280, bur not for Bill C-282. We have our votes in the House, but it didn't go through this committee. For us to send a letter on Bill C-282 would make less sense.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you.

Ms. Rood.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I was just wondering if Bill C-282 went through a different committee in the Senate than Bill C-280 did in the Senate. It does not make sense to comment on a bill that we did not see before this committee and urge the other chamber to pass something when we did not even talk about it here.

It is not that we are not supportive, but it just doesn't relate to this committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you.

I see pretty unanimous consent on Bill C-280, so I think we can move with that. The analyst can do that letter.

Do we want to put the letter on Bill C-282 to a vote? We could discuss this all day, but we do have some colleagues here who want to testify on this current study. Rather than debating this around the table, do we want to just have a vote on whether to do a similar letter for Bill C-282 that would go to the finance and banking committee?

Mr. Perron, do you feel that should be the way to go?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I agree that we should vote. At worst, we'll do two separate letters, but let's vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

I think we're good on Bill C-280. We've agreed to that. I don't see any concerns.

Do you want a recorded vote, Mr. Perron, or do you want to just go around the table and see where we're at?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I call for a vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Looking at my colleagues, I think we're fine. Therefore, we'll do a letter on Bill C-280 and a letter on Bill C-282, with similar messages. There will be two different letters.

Thanks, colleagues. We appreciate everybody's congeniality on that. Now we will go to our business at hand.

I call the meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to order.

I will give a couple of reminders.

I know our witnesses have been here many times before, so this is probably a little redundant. The meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available on the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will show the person speaking, not the entire committee. Please don't take photos or screenshots.

To our witnesses, we've had some issues with feedback in the microphones, so please keep your earpieces as far away from the microphone as possible to ensure the safety of our interpreters.

I don't think I need to go through too much; I think everyone has been here before.

Mr. Perron, is this on this issue?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I want to make sure that the sound checks have been done for the online witnesses.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Yes, everything has been done accordingly. I appreciate your raising that.

Colleagues, I'll introduce the witnesses we have today for this block.

From the Agri-Food Innovation Council, we have Serge Buy, who is online.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I don't think Mr. Maloney was tested.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Mr. Maloney, were you tested for sound prior to the start?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I was not, Chair. I assumed that meant nobody wanted to hear from me today.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

That could very well be the case, but we'll suspend for just one minute to test your sound, please, Mr. Maloney.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thanks for the heads-up, Mr. MacDonald. I appreciate your looking out for your colleagues.

We also have with us, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Currie and Mr. Ross, who are certainly no strangers to this committee.

From Pulse Canada, we have Mr. Northey, vice-president of corporate affairs. Greg, it is good to see you.

From Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec, we have Jasmine Sauvé, executive director, and Stéphanie Forcier, public relations manager, who are both here by video conference.

To our witnesses, you have about five minutes for your opening statements. Because we have so many witnesses today, I will be keeping you to that five minutes as tightly as I can.

Let's start with Mr. Buy from the Agri-Food Innovation Council for five minutes, please.

[Serge Buy, Chief Executive Officer, Agri-Food Innovation Council]

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

First, let me thank you for having invited the Agri-Food Innovation Council to speak on border carbon adjustments. As we always do when asked to appear in front of a parliamentary committee, we invited our members and stakeholders to provide their thoughts and information. It forms the basis of my comments.

Generally, there seems to be consensus that a border carbon adjustment can be a tool to safeguard the competitiveness of Canadian producers. It can also influence foreign exporters to implement solutions to reduce their own GHG emissions.

However, we also heard that the sector has a lot of concerns. Let me list the main ones.

Until there are transparent and internationally accepted metrics, it will be difficult to impose BCAs on agri-food products. BCAs should not be implemented in a unilateral manner but rather through multilateral trade agreements. At a bare minimum, it should be a North American strategy and not just a Canadian one.

BCAs were initially designed to deal with oil, steel and cement. Agri-food is a complex sector that will require very careful review. There are so many inputs and outputs in the sector that BCAs will be difficult to implement.

BCAs will also increase prices in grocery stores, and that will create an inflationary pressure. Canadian consumers already struggling with the prices of food do not look forward to this. Basically, it isn't the time.

BCAs are also seen as a way for industrialized countries to transfer the burden of environmental policies to lower-income countries. This is contrary to the Stockholm declaration's recommendation 103, and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Should BCAs be adopted for agri-food products, funds collected should be reinvested to support new technologies and their adoption. The Canadian government should, in fact, provide more support for the adoption of technologies leading to a decrease in GHG emissions and an increase in productivity and competitiveness.

We should also look at reducing “redundancies, gaps and inconsistencies” and support programs “for intellectual property, research and development, and commercialization”, as was recommended by the Standing Committee on Science and Research in November 2023. A national strategy to coordinate efforts on agri-food research and innovation would significantly help.

Let me focus on some of those concerns.

The first one, which you've already heard in previous presentations, is that there are no internationally recognized and transparent measurements of GHG emissions for the agri-food sector. In Canada, the number—as mentioned by Mr. Tom Rosser from AAFC during his presentation last week—varies between 8% and 10%. However, it should be noted that Canada's agri-food production is both a source and a sink of GHGs, as noted in a 2021 report from The Simpson Centre for Agricultural and Food Innovation and Public Education.

However, internationally, measurements vary significantly, and the manner in which some of those numbers are collected is not as transparent as in Canada. The lack of internationally agreed-on and verifiable metrics makes it difficult to impose such border carbon adjustments.

During a presentation by the Quebec Produce Growers Association, you heard concerns about measures to prevent certain products that don't meet phytosanitary standards from still entering Canada. You can imagine that it will be difficult to verify exporters' claims about environmental production standards when we don't even have international standards.

There is some strong consensus, at least expressed by our membership and stakeholders in our consultation, that the BCA should not be imposed unilaterally. One of our stakeholders reminded us of the 2023 Bank of Canada report that stated that, in short, there is value in advancing a BCA policy in Canada to prevent carbon leakage and maintain competitiveness. It is imperative, however, that the BCA only be adopted once it has been aligned with major trading partners in order to draw the maximum benefits.

BCAs will increase costs for consumers. I think there would be consensus in most circles that this is probably not the time to introduce measures that will make groceries even more out of reach to Canadian families. If the intent is to turn around and say to Canadians that the introduction of a border carbon adjustment may increase the cost of food but that it is to protect the Canadian agri-food system, from the farm to the food processors, please don't. Invest in further research and the scaling up of existing technologies, and support their adoption. Broaden funding opportunities to be less restrictive and more strategic. This would support the Canadian agri-food sector in its efforts to further decrease its GHG emissions, increase productivity and become even more competitive.

While border carbon adjustments are an option, there is a lot of work to be done before they should be implemented. We would recommend that the government start the work that is needed prior to implementing such border carbon adjustments.

Canada represents 1.5% of the world's total GHG emissions. That's not a high number, but like Mr. Drouin stated in a discussion at a previous meeting, it doesn't mean we can't do more. The question is whether this is the right measure. At this time, and without having addressed the nine issues that I listed earlier, I would say no. There are many other things that can be done that would have a much more positive impact.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Buy.

Now we go to the Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec.

Madame Forcier and Madame Sauvé, it's over to you for five minutes, please.

[Jasmine Sauvé, Executive Director, Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Jasmine Sauvé, and I'm the executive director of the Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec. With me today is Stéphanie Forcier, the association's public relations manager. Thank you very much for the invitation. It's a privilege to speak to you today.

The Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec represents nearly 350 businesses of different sizes throughout the province. In 2021, the production sector was worth over $85 million, making Quebec the largest strawberry‑producing province in Canada and the third for raspberry production. In North America, we rank third in strawberry production, behind California and Mexico.

For Quebec strawberry and raspberry producers, reciprocity of standards is a fundamental issue. Imported strawberries and raspberries are in direct competition with our local products. These imports come mainly from California and Mexico, which are regions where production conditions are very different from ours. In fact, strawberry sales from Mexico to Canada have increased by 65% in five years.

When it comes to production conditions for local products, Canada has established strict regulations governing food safety and traceability, guaranteeing Canadians safe food. Among other things, authorized phytosanitary products are rigorously regulated, and we support that regulation. However, it's imperative that imported products meet the same requirements as those imposed on our producers.

Take bifenthrin, for example. Bifenthrin is an insecticide that hasn't been approved for use in Canada for raspberries since December 2017 because it's considered too dangerous and highly toxic for pollinators. However, this product is still widely used to control a number of insect pests and is approved in California and Mexico for the production of strawberries and raspberries. So imported strawberries and raspberries from these regions contain residues from this pesticide. The product was found on samples of imported strawberries, at a high concentration, by Quebec's ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food.

If Canada considers certain crop protection products to be a risk to human health or wildlife, why does it allow the importation of strawberries and raspberries grown with these substances?

The problem of phytosanitary products doesn't end there. Pesticide residue limits allowed in strawberry and raspberry production in California and Mexico are higher for several molecules. This has a direct impact on the safety of imported berries, but again, Canada allows them to be imported.

In addition to production conditions, Californian and Mexican strawberries and raspberries are produced within a framework of social standards that differs considerably from that applied in Canada. In 2022, the minimum daily wage in Mexico was 172 Mexican pesos, or just over $12 Canadian. This means that a strawberry picker's hourly wage in Mexico is less than the hourly wage of a strawberry picker in Canada. This is particularly significant for our sector, where 55% of production costs are labour-related and where few, if any, berry production tasks can be mechanized.

These two aspects—the differences in production conditions and social standards—undermine the competitiveness of our companies, especially in a context where strawberry and raspberry exporting regions are resorting to dumping strategies in our market. In periods of overproduction, California and Mexico export fruit at prices below their production costs, particularly to the Montreal market, in order to preserve prices in their own markets. These fruits flood our domestic market and unfairly compete with berries grown to the societal standards we've established. This makes it impossible for our producers to compete fairly and equitably.

With respect to carbon border adjustments, given international competition, differences in carbon pricing can be problematic. Although strawberry and raspberry production generally emits few greenhouse gases, for strawberry producers to be able to compete with fruits and vegetables imported and produced elsewhere in Canada, there must be a symmetry of standards at the border, but also between Canadian provinces. Let's not forget that agricultural producers are stewards of biodiversity and that their actions are part of the solution. This has already been mentioned by witnesses in previous meetings, but mechanisms for compensating environmental services must be more present across the country.

I also want to highlight the importance of promoting environmental sustainability in our sector. Consumers are becoming more and more sensitive to environmental issues. Our producers are meeting these expectations by adopting sustainable farming practices. Food affordability shouldn't be an argument for sacrificing local agriculture by implying that buying local is more expensive.

In conclusion, the competitiveness of Quebec's strawberry and raspberry sector is seriously affected by high social standards and a demanding production environment, without equivalent constraints on imported products. If food can be produced at such a low cost, we have to ask ourselves who has been exploited: Is it the flora, the fauna or the human?

It is essential that we act in a consistent manner by applying the principle of reciprocity of standards, including social standards. The sector needs the support of its elected officials now more than ever.

Thank you for your attention. My colleague and I are available to answer your questions.