International Trade Committee on April 21st, 2016

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Will that create middle class and unskilled jobs?

[Cam Dahl]

Absolutely. It creates jobs throughout the entire spectrum. It creates high-tech jobs and research jobs. We have international companies like Limagrain investing in research in Canada. We have Bayer investing in research in Canada. They can go elsewhere. If the opportunities are better in Australia or the U.S. then that investment is not coming to Canada. It is absolutely critical for those investment decisions that we have access to international markets. Those are high-tech jobs. Those are middle class jobs. Those are jobs on the farm. Those are jobs in our local community. Those are jobs throughout the entire Canadian spectrum.

[François Labelle]

Just to build on that a little, I think the investment that is going on in agriculture has always been phenomenal and amazing over the years. The worst thing that can happen is, if we lose our ability to trade, we're going to stall out, and we'll stall out badly. Then I think the loss in jobs at all levels is going to be much worse than if we ratify the agreement, go ahead, and are able to trade on an even footing with our competitors. That is by far the key.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

How much of your pulse business is outside the TPP? I was raised on meals of pulses twice a day, so I would like to know that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

A quick answer, please, because his time is almost up.

[Gord Kurbis]

Less than 10%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

That's it for the Liberals. We're going to move over to the NDP with Ms. Ramsey for five minutes.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Good morning, and thank you for your presentations.

I come from a rural riding as well, and I really appreciate the work of farmers. I disagree strongly with the concept that farming is done in Canada—not by far. I think there are miles and miles to go into our future. I appreciate the work you do.

I think what my colleague was highlighting is something we've been facing on this committee around the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and that's that it's 30 chapters, and six have to do with trade in the way that you're discussing, and we're talking about tariff and non-tariff barriers. It's the remainder of the chapters that we have to look at, on balance.

Part of our discussion has been around the fact that we don't have an economic impact study from Global Affairs and that we are really seeking some information from those who are coming to present to us on what you're basing your numbers and your projections on. Have you done your own economic impact studies, based on your particular sectors, and if so, would you be willing to share them with us?

[Patti Miller]

The number we reference for the canola industry, the $780-million additional income into the sector, was done from a general equilibrium model analysis that we then took back to work with our processors and exporters to validate that economic model.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Could you share that with the committee, then?

[Patti Miller]

Yes.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Perfect.

Anyone else?

[Gord Kurbis]

We don't have a study like that. One of the reasons is that we see the opportunity as being the potential for alignment of trade rules and SPS rules. If it were just the tariff issue, I think we would be able to put together the economics, but for us the bigger gain is alignment of 21st century trade rules.

[Cam Dahl]

To echo my colleague's comments, again I think we do need to look beyond just a tariff. We have done internal analysis. It's not really something that's written up like a journal article, so it's not quite in a shape that I could share, but that's where the estimates of the difference between what we can potentially gain or lose come from. That's where that amount, the $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year, comes from.

Again, to echo Gord's comments, it's beyond tariffs as well. Those other chapters are important to us. The rules-based trade, the sections around modern technology, around dispute resolution, are critically important to us. It is more than just the tariffs.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

You were discussing the regulatory misalignment, and it's something that we've heard over and over—the phytosanitary and the sanitary.

What I'm hearing today is your saying that the TPP doesn't have provisions to align those countries with us currently, and that you hope through the committee that's going to be struck in the TPP that that will happen. My concern is that if we get to that point of the committee and then that doesn't happen, will you be any better off in your industry in trying to align with the TPP countries with which we don't currently share those same alignments? I think you mentioned that with 11 out of 12 countries, we currently don't have that alignment.

Can you speak further to that, so that, as a committee, we can fully understand the potential that you see? Also, if the alignment doesn't come to pass with that committee structure, where would that leave you?

[Gord Kurbis]

I can say that we would love to see future free trade agreements with standard language that compels parties to come together to align these standards. No free trade agreement that we've ever seen contains language like that. That could be something to build on in the future. That means we're relegated to the use of scientific committees.

We've seen successes in other FTAs in the past, so I think the likelihood is high. As for where that would leave us if it stalled, I just don't think we can afford to let it stall.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I'm wondering about cereal in the particular. Can you mention some of the other non-tariff barriers that are a limitation to you? Can you identify those for the committee for cereal? This is the first time we're hearing from cereals as a whole.

[Cam Dahl]

It focuses on some of the things you've heard about in the past—the non-scientific barriers around MRLs, for example. The TPP does contain wheat measures that move us forward in that, so it's not the status quo. We do have the basis for addressing some of those concerns and issues. It's around health and safety issues, basing them on science. It's around provisions for the regulation of new technologies, for example.

Again, the TPP takes us in directions that we haven't seen before in trade agreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We'll move back to the Liberals for five minutes.

Ms. Ludwig, you have the floor.

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

Thank you to the panel for your excellent presentations.

I'll take a bit of a different approach. We have heard from a number of panellists with similar views. I'm wondering if you could respond to the concerns from many individuals across the country regarding the threats to human rights, the environment, and Canadian sovereignty if the deal is signed.

[Cam Dahl]

I think Gordon and François have addressed the benefits of modern agriculture on the environment, but let me go further with that.

If we look at Canadian agriculture and the sustainability of modern agriculture practices—I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but it's true—Saskatchewan doesn't blow into Ontario every summer anymore. There's a reason for that. The reason for that is modern Canadian agriculture. The growth of modern agriculture practices and the ability of other countries within the region to help, to gain access to modern techniques and modern tools, is a huge boon to sustainability.

I've spent some time in past lives in international development, and the biggest benefit, I would say, on human rights is the ability to feed yourself, rising incomes, and supporting the growth of the middle class. I am very confident that the TPP will do that.

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

Thank you.

Does anyone else on the panel have a comment?

[Patti Miller]

I would echo Cam's remarks in terms of the environmental impacts of modern agriculture, as compared to people's view of farmers and the farm community wearing overalls and being in the past.

Canola specifically has resulted in an almost complete reduction in tillage practices that disturbed the soil. We have no till, good organic matter, and soil preservation. We use fewer pesticides. They are more targeted. This is an incredibly sophisticated industry. I think we've probably been a bit remiss in the past in telling that story. We are actually starting to work together as an industry to share that environmental message with Canadians and the rest of the world.

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

I think that's really an important step because for many of us part of this is just about communication. I really appreciate how busy you are in your own industries. I would encourage you certainly to share the benefits and the improvements that you're making across the industry, and the significance not only locally and nationally but also internationally in raising expectations and standards.

On the structured dispute resolution process, how does the ISDS mechanism meet your vision and expectations, as it's written in the TPP treaty?

[Gord Kurbis]

I'm having a hard time thinking of an instance where investor-state dispute resolution would apply, but maybe some of my colleagues....