Agriculture Committee on Dec. 21st, 2021

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

Thank you. I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll go back to the five-minute slot, starting with the Conservative Party and Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I'll begin, and then I'll split my time with my colleague Mr. Calkins.

I'm a bit confused, so let me go back to a previous answer from Mr. Rosser. There's nothing that precludes an agreement with the U.S. coming to terms at any point, but do we or do we not have access to the CUSMA dispute resolution mechanisms as a fail-safe?

Back in 2000 we settled this dispute without a management plan in six months. Do we or do we not have access?

[Tom Rosser]

Yes. I mean, from a.... The Americans do have obligations in their use of phytosanitary measures, and we are certainly bringing that perspective to dialogue around a way forward.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Let me take it to the implications to the market if we have a longer-term protracted dispute if we don't use that mechanism efficiently. What was the purpose of putting the date of 2023 in there, saying that this could last until 2023?

[Tom Rosser]

Mr. Chair, I don't know if that's a question for me. Again, it's more based on dialogue with the United States and some of the scientific measures or scientific work they have requested. That is an estimate of how long it will take to undertake the various measures they've outlined.

As I tried to explain in earlier testimony, it does not necessarily mean that the current export measures will remain frozen in place exactly as they are for that entire period, but that was an estimate of how long it would likely take to complete the work that the Americans have requested of us.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I'm trying to determine whether this is a scientific dispute or a trade dispute. If it's a trade dispute, we have dispute resolution mechanisms. If we are doing this until 2023, that will mean another season lost. Someone's going to fill that American market, or a large part of it, and it will be lost to our Canadian producers. That will affect the potato producers in my riding.

What would you say to that, with the 4¢ floor that my producers here or now the producers in western Canada are expecting for this year's crop, with no opportunity for P.E.I. to export to the U.S. in 2022?

[Tom Rosser]

Mr. Chair, I'd simply say that there is no 4¢ floor. We are hopeful that we may see a speedy resolution in terms of P.E.I.'s access for at least some products into the U.S. market. It's very common in the agriculture world that phytosanitary and scientific issues intertwine with trade ones. I can assure the committee that we are looking at our circumstances in this situation through both prisms to inform a way forward.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

I'll turn my time over to Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

My question, Mr. Rosser, is this. You brought up in your answers to previous questions the notion of exploring all options available to us, including trade levers. Those were your words. You used those words. The president of the CFIA maintained throughout the entirety of her testimony that this is simply a scientific and technical discussion between American and Canadian representatives at that level. What is it, actually?

The Government of Canada's response seems to be different depending on the department. If you're considering trade levers, then it's obviously a political-economic dispute. At what point are we going to recognize this for exactly what it is? This is protectionism by the protectionist government in the United States, which is using a non-tariff barrier through this regulatory framework, which it can do from time to time, which it has done from time to time, which it hasn't done every time because every time we've detected potato wart, this has not been a problem. The tone has changed, so when is our tone going to change in response?

[Tom Rosser]

Mr. Chair, I'd just say that Dr. Mithani's mandate, her agency's mandate, is to look at this as a scientific and plant health issue and that's the perspective that they bring to it.

On the working group that Greg Donald and Fred Gorrell co-chair, CFIA is represented, as is Agriculture Canada and the trade experts at Global Affairs. Our objective is to bring all perspectives to it. Certainly if we can see resolution, see progress made, on this on a scientific level, on a plant health level, that will offer, I think, the greatest possibility for a speedy resolution to this, but it's not the only prism through which we as a government are examining this issue.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I assume I have some time left, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have seven seconds, unfortunately, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I would like to have a long, protracted conversation with Mr. Donald if I get the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're going to go to Mrs. Valdez.

It's over to you.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I just want to tell the committee that I'm sharing my time with the MP for Kitchener—Conestoga.

My questions are for Mr. Rosser.

First, who has the authority to stop production on a specific farm? Second, what is the role of the province in managing the pest?

[Tom Rosser]

In terms of a legal and technical response, my colleagues from CFIA might be better placed to offer a more detailed answer than I am.

I would say, though, that in managing this, there is very close collaboration, daily collaboration, between the relevant officials at CFIA and the province, but in terms of the legal details of who's responsible for what and who can order what on a farm, I would suggest that the committee address those questions, perhaps in writing, to the participants on the previous panel.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I know you mentioned in your opening statement, just to clarify, the $28 million that was announced, which will be used to assist the funding to direct potatoes to food banks and food security organizations. The fund is not there just to destroy potato product. Can you confirm that?

[Tom Rosser]

That is correct, Mr. Chair. It is for many uses. It can be used to help with destruction, but our first priority, which I believe is shared by the industry and the province, since these are good-quality potatoes, is to make use of them productively wherever possible, be that at food banks, for export, for further processing, or for other potential uses.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

I'll pass it over to the MP for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank both of the panellists.

To continue on the question that was asked, we know that potato wart is a serious agricultural pest, but it's not a threat to human health. Maybe you wouldn't mind expanding, in the short time we have, on some of the creative solutions that will not only support our farmers this winter, given the destruction of potatoes, but also help make the best of this difficult situation in a collaborative way through giving to food banks and diverting potatoes, through other means, to people who need them.

[Tom Rosser]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I could try an initial answer, and Greg Donald may well have a perspective as well. As a department, we do have some experience with food surpluses that built up during the COVID episode as a result of the partial closure of the hotel and restaurant sector and with helping food security organizations to procure that food and make use of it. We are using that network and some of the lessons learned from that experience to see if we can make a portion of this surplus available to food security organizations across Canada and potentially elsewhere as well.

We're looking at an active discussion with potato processors not just in P.E.I. or Atlantic Canada but also in other regions of the country as to whether there might be a possibility for them to make greater use of the surplus. We're open to other possibilities, whether those be animal feed or biofuel feedstock, recognizing that not all of those solutions are going to help us tremendously in terms of dealing with the surplus at hand. We're exploring all possibilities that we can identify.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

That's perfect. Thank you.

I will continue with you, Mr. Rosser.

You mentioned the team Canada approach that we're taking and that a working group has been formed to bring relevant players to the table to decide what measures are available to us. You mentioned some of the organizations, but can you share with this committee which organizations are at the table and what perspective they bring to our discussion?

[Tom Rosser]

Greg Donald is the co-chair. He may well have a perspective on it, but there is also a representative, in fact. Dr. Sanford, who was part of the earlier panel, is a member of that committee. A number of representatives of the P.E.I. Potato Board are also present on it. There are representatives of some of the major processing organizations, the Department of Global Affairs, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Off the top of my head, those are where the members are drawn from, but perhaps Greg might have something to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Donald.