International Trade Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I suspect the same would be true with fracking. You have developed techniques that our front-line.... Would this agreement help you to make a move into some other countries? Could you give us examples of some of these different countries? I don't think Japan would be one of these, but any of the others, the South American countries possibly.

[Tim McMillan]

Potentially, if I stray too far into the geology world, I will not be speaking from knowledge. Each clay has uniquely different characteristics. We have horizontal drilling and multi-stage fracking, which are different completion techniques. Fracking is just one completion technique, and though it may be very effective in the Montney, it may need tweaks slightly in the Duvernay, and it may be different from what they're doing in Pennsylvania. However, it's all built off a similar platform. The innovation is an ongoing process. We do it differently today than we did a few years ago.

Nowhere in the world has unlocked multi-stage fracking and horizontal drilling in the way that North America has. Potentially, are there “plays” that would allow other countries to unlock their resources? In all likelihood, yes. Different completion techniques will be used around the world, and maybe fracking and maybe horizontal drilling will be part of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren. Your time is up.

I see some new faces in the back. Welcome to our committee.

Now we're going to move on to the Liberals for five minutes.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

It's great to hear the diversity on the panel. It's quite interesting.

Regarding the chicken farmers, we have heard from other panellists in Ottawa in similar veins of conversation. In terms of importing, I think it would be quite surprising to Canadians at the grocery store if they actually knew the level of imports on the chicken side. What has been done to date, in terms of labelling and packaging, that we could learn from as we ratify different agreements?

[Erna M. Ference]

I'm not an expert in the labelling issue, but I understand that it's under the purview of the CFIA and Canada Border Services.

Gerry, you'd probably know more about that than I would, I'm sure.

As far as TPP is concerned, I don't know what the ramifications are on that. We would welcome that labelling for the spent fowl, as I indicated, which is part of something that we think is already available. It just hasn't been implemented.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Okay. I'll ask Gerry about this afterwards.

In terms of the implementation of trade agreements, what has been your experience with CFIA and CBSA?

[Erna M. Ference]

I can't even comment on that except to say that the government does regulate the amount of tariff rate quota on chicken imports. They do try, I believe, to regulate the amount of chicken coming in that could possibly be illegal, or not up to specifications, but I don't think they have the manpower or the capacity to be able to do what a lot of the trade agreements say.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Do you think, based on past experiences, that if the TPP were ratified there is potential to raise the standards and the expectations for chickens grown or produced elsewhere, and then imported to Canada?

[Erna M. Ference]

I don't believe so, because then you're going down a line of phytosanitary measures, which I think are one of the things these trade agreements are trying to get away from, that is, preventing imports based on those sorts of limitations.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I asked because we heard from other panellists in Ottawa about phytosanitary measures, and what they were suggesting was more of a harmonized standardization for implementation.

[Erna M. Ference]

That would be wonderful if it could be accomplished, because I know that even with antimicrobial use, there's a difference between what we call an antimicrobial and what the United States does. That's a major concern for our interests, as we're going down that revised requirements of consumers.

So that would potentially be one benefit.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. McMillan, living in Atlantic Canada, we have seen many Atlantic Canadians move west for employment. We are definitely starting to see a shift towards them returning. Unfortunately, when they return, the incomes are not there, and neither, for the most part, are the jobs. You have mentioned—and I hope I say this correctly—diluent.

[Tim McMillan]

Yes.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

In terms of NAFTA, if you're importing that from U.S., you said you're paying the equivalent of, potentially, $40 million in tariffs. How does that not qualify as a tariff exemption or at least a reduction under NAFTA?

[Tim McMillan]

That's a great question.

We are bringing in diluent from the west coast. As well, it's coming in from the U.S. Some of what comes into the U.S. is likely imported into the U.S. and then is flowing through a diluent pipeline into Canada. It is a challenge, a structural challenge. The tanks it might stored in may be commingled with different products. There's quite an accounting of what tariff is paid on what diluent and where it comes out of the tank. There are some complexities on top of....

You're absolutely right. If the diluent is sourced out of the U.S., it would be treated differently than if it came from a country covered by the TPP.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

My last question is to you, Mr. Elliott. First, thank you for working to maintain Canadian culture. We all appreciate that.

You mentioned the Beijing accord. Could you give us some explanation of that?

[Allistair Elliott]

I'm sure glad I printed this out before I came.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have to be quick.

[Allistair Elliott]

The Beijing treaty is on audiovisual performances. It was adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Audiovisual Performances, which took place in Beijing in June 2012. It grants four kinds of economic rights: the right of reproduction, the right of distribution, the right of rental, and the right of making available. It also grants moral rights.

I can go into more details, if you want.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you. We would appreciate a copy of it. Maybe we can get it, or if it's in your submission that's fine too, and then we can draw from it there, sir.

[Allistair Elliott]

I'll forward that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We appreciate that.

Now we're going to move over to the NDP for five minutes. Ms. Ramsey.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Elliott, I echo my colleagues' sentiments and appreciate your strong commitment to Canadian culture, telling our stories through music and the art that everyone in your association provides for Canadians.

I would like to speak a little bit about the intellectual property.

The TPP would require countries to protect a work, performance, or phonogram for a minimum of 70 years after the death of the author, or 70 years after the first publication or the first performance, as the case may be. For the most part, current Canadian legislation provides protection for a period of 50 years after the author's death.

What would be the benefits and drawbacks associated with this extension of 20 years?

[Allistair Elliott]

I think it is a benefit. It's a step in the right direction. We would like to see even more solidification with reference to the things in the Beijing treaty that are not covered.