Evidence of meeting #16 for International Trade in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tpp.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kevin Boon  General Manager, British Columbia Cattlemen's Association
Paul Newman  President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group
Ric Slaco  Vice-President and Chief Forester, Interfor
Yuen Pau Woo  President and Chief Executive Officer, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
Stan Van Keulen  Board Member, British Columbia Dairy Association
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Paul Cardegna
Rhonda Driediger  Chair, British Columbia Agriculture Council
Debbie Etsell  Executive Director, B.C. Blueberry Council
Ray Nickel  Representative, British Columbia Agriculture Council
Karimah Es Sabar  President and Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Drug Research and Development
Steve Anderson  Founder and Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca
John Calvert  Associate Professor, Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Karim Kassam  Vice-President, Business and Corporate Development, Ballard Power Systems Inc.
Robin Silvester  President and Chief Executive Officer, Port Metro Vancouver
John Winter  President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Chamber of Commerce
Jon Garson  Vice-President, Policy Development Branch, British Columbia Chamber of Commerce

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

We've had three meetings on the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, between Canada and our Trans-Pacific Partnership partners, and we want to continue our study today. We look forward to the testimony of the witnesses we have before us today. This will be the fourth meeting.

From the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, we have Kevin Boon, general manager; from the Canada Wood Group, we have Paul Newman, president; and from Interfor, we have Ric Slaco.

Thanks to all of you for being with us. We look forward to your testimony, after which we'll get into the question and answer portion of the meeting, which is always interesting.

This is, I should say, another day in paradise if you look at it from Ottawa's eyes. I'm from Alberta, so I don't see it quite that way. Nonetheless, we are pleased as a committee to be here on the coast of British Columbia, on the west coast, enjoying the weather.

With that, we will start.

Mr. Boon, the floor is yours, I believe.

February 4th, 2014 / 9:05 a.m.

Kevin Boon General Manager, British Columbia Cattlemen's Association

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today and to present to you on behalf of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and its members. In a lot of ways, our industry is very much a national industry, so what is good for us here in British Columbia is the way it works for us pretty much right across the country.

I want to begin by talking a little bit about the importance of the beef industry to Canada and British Columbia, and about trade in general. Trade access to all markets is extremely important. In 2003, with the discovery of BSE in Alberta we saw all of our doors close. With an industry that exports close to 50% of our product out of Canada, we can't eat our way out of a situation like that. The six months that it took for the U.S. to open its borders were extremely difficult for us. Since then we've gradually seen the doors open to other countries and other trading partners around the world, but it's been slow and there have been a lot of restrictions and regulations put on us, which has also made it difficult to gain access. I'll address some of this as I go through what the TPP means to us.

Global supplies of beef are at an all-time low. We need these markets to incite the investment that we need to grow our industry back here in Canada. Being at the table with the Trans-Pacific Partnership is actually quite important to us. Especially with our vast expanse of arable lands here in British Columbia and Canada, we know that over the next 20 to 30 years, 30 to 40 years, we're going to probably become one of only six countries in the world with the ability to produce more than what we can consume. Knowing that, we have to prepare for that for the future. We have to make ourselves invest in what we're going to need in 30 years' time, because we feel that agriculture and the beef industry will be very important economic drivers for Canada and British Columbia.

One of the things that we consider here in B.C.—and I know that our provincial government has made it very clear—is that we are a gateway to both Canada and the Pacific. As such we can showcase, as you pointed out Mr. Merrifield, the beautiful country out here and the vast resources and the environment, which is very inviting when we have the Asian and Pacific markets coming over to visit us. That's what they see and that's what they take home, and it's a huge selling point for us in our industry.

One of the things we have to consider in all of this is that with our industry and what we do, we have an animal that we break out, a carcass. It's roughly 900 pounds of raw product to utilize. But not all countries or cultures want to utilize the same parts of that carcass, so it's extremely important for us to have a wide variety of different markets available to us. We call it whole-carcass utilization.

The signing of the CETA was extremely important to us, one, because of the volumes; two, there are no tariffs; and three, they're utilizing parts of the carcass that we're not utilizing in other parts of the world. This brings in the Pacific and Asian partners; they're utilizing different parts of that carcass. If we can do that in a way that we are spreading that around the world, it allows us to utilize and get a premium for all portions of that carcass, rather than just part of it.

So whole-carcass utilization is important, and that's why getting markets around the world and in different areas is very important to us.

The other part about this is that we're so dependent on the U.S. right now. Approximately 45% to 47% of our product is being exported out of Canada, but of that, about 73% goes into the United States.

We are very dependent on that U.S. market. By creating partnerships in Europe and in the Pacific, we are able to spread that out and become less dependent on the U.S. It also helps our capacity and our processing. If we process it here at home rather than sending it south of the line to be processed down there, we're able to keep the jobs at home and we're able to add value in the processing sector, and that all helps us in the overall economics.

In the TPP consideration alone, we have to look at certain things, because it's not just a matter of having them at the table. It's having the right people at the table and making sure that we have a good balance. We know that coming into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we not only have people we want to trade with but we have competitors sitting at the table there as well.

So in the plurilateral agreement that is being looked at here, it's very important that we are all equal and that there is not a benefit given to one, a quota taken here, or a quota taken there. All tariffs have to be removed in the same timely fashion to the same level for each of the countries, so that we are on an equal and level playing field. We also can't see these tariffs or hindrances being put on one country over another for such things as our health and our practices, so we need a standard. We would like to see it go under the OIE standards, and that way there is a set field and a set of guidelines that we all follow.

We also feel that it's very important that any decisions made must be science-based. We know that with emotion and with the quickness of media travel, some get the wrong interpretation or the wrong feeling or the wrong idea about some of what comes forward. So we must make sure that all decisions on the trades that are made, the deals that are made, and the standards going forward are based on science so that we're also on that equal playing field. It can only be beneficial that we are all on that equal playing field.

There must be a single agreement so that we include all the countries. I believe there are 11 or 12 right now that have signed up, and we know there are more to come. It wasn't beneficial to us really until we started seeing the likes of Japan coming online. Vietnam is very important to us, but Japan and Korea—which we have indication will probably sign—make it extremely important to us.

With the partners currently at the table, it's very important that we be part of it. To be outside of that circle would be a detriment as well. If you're not totally in agreement with the deal, that's one thing, but if you're outside of it, you have no say. So we feel it's very important to be part of the negotiations and part of the partnership.

B.C. is going to benefit from any agreement that it makes with any of the Pacific trading partners, and a lot of that is due to our proximity. It's due to the other products that we're marketing. The lumber industry, for example, has had great successes in China, and we know the value and the population base that we have to work with. It's extremely important for us in the beef industry to get that investment now so they can start to prepare and make their alliances so they can have some food security in the future. It's very important to us to be able to supply that.

With the growing need to produce safe high-quality food to supply a global demand, it's imperative that we be at the negotiating table, but it is equally important that we make the right deal. The agreements reached here will mould our agricultural production and its economic impact for Canada for our future generations. The long-term effects must be carefully considered in the negotiations, but the opportunity to expand our trading markets is before us and we need to take advantage of it.

With that, I'll conclude my presentation. I thank you once again very much for the opportunity and I look forward to questions. I find that's the best place to actually get the real opinions out. Thank you.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Very good. Thank you very much. We'll now move to our second presenter.

Mr. Newman from the Canada Wood Group, the floor is yours.

9:10 a.m.

Paul Newman President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group

Thank you, Chairman Merrifield, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm going to be speaking today on the TPP and Canada's offshore wood product exports.

Quickly, I just want to tell you about the Canada Wood Group. We are an association of associations and we represent 10 regional wood product associations in Canada based in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia.

Our members export lumber, panels, engineered and value-added wood products to world markets. The organization provides market access and promotional support in target countries.

We receive support for our activities from Natural Resources Canada, a number of provincial governments, and matching dollars from the forest industry. We have offices in Europe, Japan, Korea, and China. We'll soon be active in India. We work closely with DFAIT and Canadian posts in many countries.

I should emphasize that the Canada Wood Group does not have a mandate to work in the United States. I'm joined today on behalf of B.C. producers by Mr. Ric Slaco who represents the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, which handles U.S. trade issues. So, if questions arise during the question period, Ric will handle those.

Like Mr. Boon who made, I thought, some compelling comments on market diversification, diversification for the forest sector has been critically important in recent years, especially given the slowdown we saw in the U.S. We also have a similar situation, interestingly like beef, where we have complementarity of products and markets. So, it's important to spread your product across many markets and in so doing maximize value and sales return.

In terms of the current participants in the TPP discussions, the United States, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia are long-standing and valued customers for Canadian wood products. By value, year-to-date, November 2013, the United States represented 65% of softwood lumber exports from Canada, with Japan at 12%, and Oceania at three-quarters of a per cent.

Canadian industry has expectations that countries like Malaysia and Vietnam hold promise going forward as new markets for softwood lumber. Although current sales are negligible, shortages in traditional supplies of tropical hardwoods and a relocation of manufacturing facilities to these countries from places like China and other higher-cost locales suggest that Canadian exports will grow to those countries.

The remaining members of the TPP group at the present time represent small customers for our industry and we don't have great expectations for increased business. I should note that the U.S., Chile, and Oceania are competitive exporters with vibrant domestic force sectors selling into world markets competing against Canada. In fact, Japan has a growing domestic capacity driven by expanding homegrown log supplies and aggressive government incentives.

When we look at some of the potential future TPP participants, there are a number of countries that we would view, if they acceded to the TPP negotiations, as a very positive development. China, as has been mentioned, is a very significant new customer for the Canadian wood products industry at close to 19% of export value, November 2013 year-to-date.

We believe that Canada's trade with China in wood products will continue to expand and diversify product-wise. Taiwan and Korea both represent approximately 1% each of 2013 exports and there's definitely room for growth. India and Indonesia fall under the same category as Malaysia and Vietnam, little sales as yet, but circumstances like changing fibre flows suggest that opportunities will emerge.

When we look at specific issues that are going to be addressed under the TPP negotiations, I would echo Mr. Boon's comments on tariffs. Wood products are subject to fluctuating exchange rates and relatively thin profit margins. So the export potential for Canadian wood products are very dependent on import tariff levels.

Where level playing fields have existed for all international competitors, Canada has shown it can compete. However, differential tariffs such as those presently existing in South Korea, as a result of the passage of the 2012 U.S., 2011 European, and the 2011 Chilean free trade agreements, can place Canadian exporters at a disadvantage.

Therefore, tariffs need to be addressed in any negotiation, and especially in those circumstances where Canadian producers could be exposed to higher levels than their competitors.

We also are subject to and affected by a number of technical barriers to trade. These include things like phytosanitary barriers. These are ostensibly erected to prevent the movement of invasive pests and diseases and are often well justified, but frequently they are unnecessarily robust or used as a trade barrier by some nations.

Product standards and building codes are also potentially an issue. As a prerequisite to get Canadian products accepted for approval in structural building applications, it's usually necessary that our products be included in foreign standards, or ideally, that we get direct recognition of Canadian product standards by import countries or customer countries. However, some countries insist on foreign products meeting their own standards, regardless of whether or not the product has been demonstrably fit for the purpose.

Conformity assessment systems refer to third-party certification of product quality and conforming to the standards to which they're manufactured. Canada has sound and very well-regarded systems for quality certification of solid wood products. These systems are recognized in many markets and accepted in their own right as assurances of product performance. However, some countries impose their own conformity assessment requirements on imports, which are usually duplicative and ignore Canadian marks of conformance. Therefore, wherever possible, we should strive to have Canadian conformity assessment systems and standards directly recognized to minimize cost and maximize flexibility.

With respect to environmental reputation, many countries are sensitive to environmental concerns and strive to implement sustainable solutions and use green building materials. Canada has an excellent story to tell in this regard. However, not all countries ascribe a positive role to wood in building or as a material. Therefore, every opportunity should be taken to advance Canada's image as a credible, sustainable supplier of wood products and to support the case for wood as an integral element in green building solutions. These barriers exist to greater or lesser degrees in most TPP countries. If possible, efforts should be taken to minimize the effects of these barriers and achieve recognition of existing Canadian systems where possible.

Existing TPP countries account for at least 78% of Canada's softwood lumber exports to world markets. When you add aspirant nations, real and potential TPP states represent close to 98% of Canada's current exports of softwood lumber, which was valued in 2012 at $5.8 billion. Therefore, what happens in terms of TPP trade provisions that address tariffs and quotas, barriers to trade, procurement and competitive policies, and environmental requirements matter enormously to the wood industry.

Some suggestions that we would have for Canadian negotiators include provisions that limit the ability of countries like Japan to introduce preferential purchasing policies linked to incentives that favour the domestic industry. An example of that is the forestry agency's current wood-use points program, which represents a significant threat to Canadian market share. I've mentioned already acceptance and recognition of our conformity assessment schemes and product standards, and I've also mentioned environmental credentials and the potential for wood as a green material.

Again, we see some situations—Korea perhaps is the most outstanding—where our exporters are at a disadvantage, so negotiations within the TPP, but also within Canada's EPA with Korea, will be critical in levelling the playing field with other countries.

In closing, the Canadian forest industry greatly appreciates the work being done by our government to negotiate and put in place free trade agreements and trade deals. These agreements enable industry to perform commercially and bolster the export side of our business, which is a critical driver in the improving fortunes of the sector.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Thank you very much for your presentation.

The forest industry is way ahead of governments in international trade. What you've done is to be admired, and you're all the better for it.

Ms. Crowder, the floor is yours for seven minutes.

9:20 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Thank you, Mr. Merrifield, and I want to thank the witnesses.

I'm going to start with the forestry sector because I come from the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan that has long relied on the forestry sector for the health and well-being of its economy.

Over the last number of years we have seen a decline in the forestry sector. We've closed a number of sawmills, and it's really had an impact on the local economy.

One of the troubling issues that has been raised by a number of organizations is the fact that people don't have access to details around the TPP.

What's your comfort level? What kind of of information do you have? What kind of details do you have, and how have you been consulted?

9:25 a.m.

President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group

Paul Newman

That's a good point.

When I set out to prepare some remarks, I went on the Internet. I looked at material available from the federal government. I even looked at Wikipedia, things like that. Those were the sources I used.

I probably missed useful sources. I even looked at information from other countries like the United States and some others, Oceania and so on. I didn't find a tremendous amount of detail available but I thought I had enough to at least craft a position.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

I appreciate both Mr. Boon and Mr. Newman coming with concrete recommendations because I think that's useful for the committee, but in effect, your list of recommendations is a wish list and is not based on having access to details from the TPP.

9:25 a.m.

President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group

Paul Newman

I did see the scope of the areas the agreement is addressing and these resonated in terms of the issues we face in a number of the target countries.

I crafted it on that basis.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Before you go, Mr. Slaco, I want to say that a number of us have relied on leaks. I have the “TPPA Environment Chapter & Chair's Commentary Posted by WikiLeaks”, so unfortunately we haven't been able to rely on our own government. We've had to go to WikiLeaks to get information, and this one has some very good information about the environment chapter, which it should have.

I've noted your comments around the environment, and this should have us very concerned.

Mr. Slaco.

9:25 a.m.

Ric Slaco Vice-President and Chief Forester, Interfor

Yes, in answer to your question, the forest sector does have an avenue to get information on the TPP and other trade agreements.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Would you be prepared to share that with the committee because you probably have insight that we don't have?

9:25 a.m.

Vice-President and Chief Forester, Interfor

Ric Slaco

The mechanism for us to do that is through something that was established through the federal government's program to advise us on the softwood lumber agreement.

At the same time we get briefings, and I believe there are webinars and briefing sessions to advise us.

Certainly one of the most important aspects of TPP is to bring Canada forward in establishing modern trade agreements with trading partners outside the current ones.

While we are all learning from this—and I think even Canada's entry into TPP was partway through—it's a learning process for both of us. So despite the fact that there may be some limit in the information that's out there in text form, the opportunity that the federal government has provided by way of briefing—

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

I'm going to cut you off because I have only seven minutes and that includes my questions and your answers.

Mr. Newman, there are two points I'd like you to address. Yesterday we heard from some witnesses about the importance of value-added. First, has your organization done an assessment of your competitors and what the TPP might mean in terms of incursions into our own market?

Second, do you have a specific recommendation for this committee with regard to support for value-added, because those are the more lucrative jobs for the Canadian economy?

9:25 a.m.

President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group

Paul Newman

I'm probably not the right person to talk about that, and the reason I say that is I mentioned we're an association of associations. My own expertise is in the solid sawn lumber industry.

We do have an organization called BC Wood Specialties Group, which is a member of our group. They would commission research and that sort of thing, but I'm not an expert in that area.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

With regards to the assessment of competitors, what about supports for value-added?

9:25 a.m.

President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group

Paul Newman

What about...I'm sorry?

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

If you were going to make a recommendation to this committee for how we could develop policy or protect within the TPP value-added, do you have some specific recommendations for that?

9:30 a.m.

President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group

Paul Newman

Well, certainly tariffs and things like that should be minimized.

9:30 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

You talked about the standards.

9:30 a.m.

President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group

Paul Newman

Yes, standards. Those can all be potential barriers to value-added products. There are phytosanitary issues as well.

9:30 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

So that's essentially what you presented in your presentation, but nothing additional comes to mind with regard to value-added.

9:30 a.m.

President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group

Paul Newman

Well, you mentioned specific research on potential competitive nations, and so on. Again, I think you'd be better advised to talk to people familiar with the value-added sector.

9:30 a.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Has the forestry sector had an opportunity to do an analysis on whether they anticipate additional job creation in the forestry sector? I'm interested in B.C., but in Canada as well.

Mr. Slaco or Mr. Newman, have you done any work in that respect?

9:30 a.m.

President, Vancouver Head Office, Canada Wood Group

Paul Newman

We have seen significant job creation. If you look at some of the aspiring nations like China, it was estimated that about 20 mills kept running through the downturn, representing many hundreds of jobs as a result of that 19% of shipments that I talked about that are flowing into China. There's real experience. Korea would be another market where we've seen excellent shipment growth—