Agriculture Committee on Dec. 21st, 2021

[David Bailey]

The points of note, as the president has said, are 2000, 2014-2015, 2020, and now 2021. Last year there was a restriction from the fall through to the spring of this year by the United States. You can see that each time the question of potato wart comes up, the United States becomes more concerned and raises questions of confidence and risk mitigation and their risk tolerance, for all intents and purposes, to clients.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Right. It seems that instances of potato wart aren't necessarily corresponding to the government in power per se, but in fact are related to other factors.

The only other question I have is around the role of producers and the province in terms of biosecurity practices. That risk management plan, I'm sure, is a highly collaborative effort. We've heard a lot about CFIA's role in today's conversation, but I haven't heard a whole lot about the other partners in that relationship.

If you could speak to that briefly, I'd be grateful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Turnbull, unfortunately, we're out of time. I know Mr. Matheson and Ms. Sanford certainly saw that question, and perhaps they'll get an opportunity to address that later.

We now go to Mr. Perron for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I'm going to turn to Ms. Lapointe, and I'll be keeping to the same line of questioning as Mr. Turnbull.

I asked about a timetable, and you said that you didn't really have one. You are in talks with the U.S. In fact, you have scientific discussions.

Could you please explain to the committee members and to the farmers who have tuned in what conditions need to be met for trade to resume? Do you have assurance that those conditions are guided not by bias, but by science?

You say there is scientific documentation, but we can't see. That raises questions in our minds.

[Sylvie Lapointe]

The answer to your question has two parts.

The discussions concerned are extremely technical and scientific. All are based on scientific advice and risk assessments. The first part, for us, is opening the border back up to table stock potatoes. That issue needs to be dealt with urgently and is a priority for the agency.

The second part involves a longer-term effort around seed potatoes. On that front, the U.S. wants to see the findings of our investigation into the two most recent detections, which covers 11 farms and 348 parcels of land.

Then, the U.S. wants to see the findings of our national investigation, which will be complete in January. The Americans also want to know whether we can put zoning measures in place in P.E.I. to identify high-risk parcels of land and fields, and to try to open parcels of land with a minimal risk of potato wart. In addition, the U.S. wants to conduct its own phytosanitary risk assessment, which, in its view, should take around four months.

There's a long way to go. We are trying to expedite things on our end, by facilitating conversations and providing as much information as possible.

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

Thank you for your answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Sorry, Mr. Perron, but you have just five seconds left. That isn't much time.

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

Very well. I'll make a comment, then.

Two months plus four months equals six months. In 2000, it was the U.S. that closed the border. I'm not sure what we have to gain by closing it ourselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm interested in the theme of reciprocity. Back in 2006 the CFIA had to ban the import of potatoes from the state of Idaho because of potato cyst nematode. In that case the U.S. government or the state government did not act proactively. It fell to Canadian officials to put the ban in place.

I'm wondering whether since 2006 there have been examples of the United States Department of Agriculture or any state-level governments acting proactively in the manner that we have seen in this current case, such that they have proactively stopped the export of U.S. agricultural products to Canada. I'm wondering whether they have a similar system in place whereby they've acted proactively, or has it always fallen upon our federal agency, the CFIA, to do that work for them and put a ban in place?

[Dr. Siddika Mithani]

I would like to go back to the fact that we did not put a ban on ourselves. We did not do it for ourselves. It was based on the regulatory requirement, as I've said. The plant protection regulations speak to the fact that we can issue an export certificate to an importing country only if we meet its requirements. Given the concerns the U.S. had, we were not meeting its requirements, and therefore we would not have been able to issue export certificates.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes, but to my question, I think this is semantics. One way or another, there are no P.E.I. potatoes going to the United States right now.

Are there examples since 2006 of the United States government acting proactively in the manner that we have, or has it fallen on the CFIA to identify those pests and put in place our own stops at the border to prevent U.S. agricultural produce from coming into our country?

[Dr. Siddika Mithani]

Maybe David Bailey can speak to some of the other federal orders that may have been in place around 2006.

[David Bailey]

Yes. Thank you, President.

I can't speak to the specifics of what another country may or may not have taken on for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm sorry, Mr. Bailey and Mr. MacGregor. I apologize, because it's a really good question. Maybe I'll get the authority to ask it at the end, or perhaps, Mr. MacGregor or our next Conservative speaker will.

We do want to go to our third round of questions. We have a limited amount of time, so I'm going to use my discretion and go to four minutes each for the Conservatives and Liberals.

I think Mr. Barlow's unmuting.

My apologies, Mr. MacGregor.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Well, I guess I'll pick up on Alistair's question, if that's okay. He asked about the ban. Ms. Mithani said that we couldn't provide the export certificates because we didn't meet their requirements. Well, we have an agreement in place. It's been in place since 2015. What requirements changed? If we have agreements in place with the United States, what requirements changed so that all of a sudden we couldn't provide that export certificate?

[Dr. Siddika Mithani]

It was the detection in 2021 that caused concern to the U.S. regarding potato wart, and therefore, based on that concern, we were not meeting their requirements. Therefore we were unable to issue export certificates based on that. That was the reason.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It seems to me that if you have an agreement in place, you can't have one party change those requirements without having a discussion with both sets of parties. It sounds to me as though the United States changed the game and we just capitulated.

With regard to part of that, New Brunswick asked the CFIA to ban the import of potatoes from the United States because of ring rot, and the CFIA refused, saying that the agreement we have in place is sufficient. Why does this seem to be a one-way deal, in which Canada is banning these things? Why is this a one-way trade ban, whereby we don't do it when the United States has an issue with ring rot but we're more than happy to do it when it's an issue with a Canadian product? That's why I find this frustrating.

To Mr. Matheson or Ms. Sanford, we've talked about the 33 different cases in which potato wart has been identified in Canada. At any time, if potato wart has been found in the United States, has it been traced back to origins in P.E.I., and if not, why not?

[Brian Matheson]

To the best of my knowledge, it has never been found in the United States based on a case from P.E.I. I would assume that's because the management plan is working and that things are working appropriately.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

To the CFIA again, the National Potato Council claims there's been a 75% reduction in soil sampling. Is that the case? Has CFIA's soil sampling been reduced that significantly? If so, why has it been reduced? If that is not the case, why isn't CFIA pushing back to debunk that misinformation that is continuing to be spread south of the border?

[Dr. Siddika Mithani]

That is misinformation.

I will ask David Bailey to explain. There are a number of factors that have to be considered in terms of how many soil samples are taken on a yearly basis. It really depends on a number of factors, as I said. Soil samples are done based on a regulatory requirement. They may be done—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Ms. Mithani, again, I don't need the details of it. That is what the National Potato Council is saying in the media. Why is CFIA not pushing back on that misinformation, then? Maybe you are and we're just not seeing it.

[Dr. Siddika Mithani]

Mr. Chair, I would ask David Bailey to respond. We have pushed back. We have actually corrected those statements in the media, as well.

David, if you want to explain....

[David Bailey]

Let's sum it up as bad math on the part of the American potato council.

It is not something you can average. Soil sampling and the amounts taken each year are a factor of investigations, export samples, which are provided on demand by growers, the national potato wart survey in our current context, and other things. The number of soil samples fluctuates over a period of time, and you can't average it out, which is what the National Potato Council tried to do. We have sent corrections regarding that to the various media outlets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have 30 seconds.