International Trade Committee on June 2nd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

We're going to move to the Liberals for five minutes.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the panel members.

My first question goes to Mr. Froelich, my friend Phil.

You noted that if the TPP is ratified, foreign access to the Canadian dairy market would be more like 5% to 10% instead of 3.25%, as noted in the TPP text. Could you explain that, please?

[Phil Benson]

Absolutely.

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

When the initial text came out, it was stated that the total impact would be about 3.25% or something, but that was only to year five. When you take the incremental increases, it's about 4.35%, 400,000 tonnes or something. You have to look through the fine things to realize that the impact it has depends upon whether it's butter or ice cream or cheese.

One of the saddest things is this. I cut my teeth on NAFTA. For NAFTA, as a labourer I had access to the rolling draft of the negotiators and to modelling by StatsCan. We've asked repeatedly of the minister—we had private briefings with the negotiators and with Agriculture Canada—could you do modelling for us to let us know what the impact is.

As we look at it up and down the supply chain, we just see so many potentials: Teamsters pick up the milk at the gate; it goes to a dairy; from the dairy, at which we're present, it goes to wholesalers, and we are there; we take it to airports, and we are there. If you look at all of the impacts of the things, it affects all of those areas.

Up to this point, we have to look at the agreement and take it as a sad state of affairs until we have some modelling done.

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

Thank you.

My next question goes to Mr. Wayland and Mr. Smillie.

I look at the work safety perspective and see that British Columbia workers—I come from British Columbia—are protected by WorkSafeBC, irrespective of whether they're temporary workers or permanent immigrants or students. They don't look at that perspective.

On the other side, we had architects appear before us who said that this is going to help our engineers and architects and such fields.

Where would you see a balance in the TPP whereby we can have access to foreign workers so that our businesses can succeed but at the same time are able to protect the local labour market so that low-paid labour from other countries does not jeopardize our local people here?

[Christopher Smillie]

You have to have a system in place to take a look at local labour market conditions before issuing a work permit. We don't have a problem with temporary foreign workers to fill skills gaps or shortages for employers. That's why employers use the TFW program: the oops, the band-aids; we need 35 welders or 35 electricians or 125 welders in Kitimat, or 2,000 in Kitimat as is going to be the case.

What needs to be fixed or what needs to come out, depending on how you look at it, is we need the ability to take a look at your home ridings and say that there's high unemployment in your riding. Workers are available in Canada to do this work. Give them the first shot, and if there's still a shortage, fine. That system exists within the TFW program. ESDC and CIC do this every day. They examine local labour markets and look at applications that have come in from employers and determine whether or not they will impact the local workers.

The TPP says that this cannot happen under law, nor can it ever be changed. Some sort of system needs to be put in place. We don't understand why a trade agreement wouldn't take a look at the local labour markets in that way.

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

Mr. Wayland, do you want to add something?

[Matt Wayland]

Yes, if I may.

You talked about WorkSafeBC as well, and if I can, I'll add to Chris's remarks. Each province will have a work safe program like WorkSafeBC or work safe Manitoba. What tends to happen is those practices or that group isn't on site until there's an issue, and then it's too late. We see that happen all the time.

I work in the sector. We've had individuals who under previous agreements have come in to an auto plant in a supervisory role. The plant was working two shifts in southern Ontario. The next thing you know, after the midnight shift, the workers came in in the morning and work had been completed by people who weren't qualified or trained, and they weren't supposed to be working on the tools. If that equipment had been energized at that auto factory, it could have severely injured somebody, and it could have ruined millions of dollars' worth of equipment.

It's not until after there's an issue that this comes into effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Your time is up, Mr. Dhaliwal, sorry.

We're going to move to the NDP now and Ms. Ramsey for five minutes.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you so much for all your presentations.

In the presentations today, you can see the difficulty that we have looking at the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It's deeply disturbing that we're pitting farmers against farmers. We're talking about the implication for certain farming communities and the benefits, and then we're looking at the huge loss that we would see in dairy. We certainly have heard from a lot of dairy farmers and a lot of seed farmers as well.

Mr. Chopra, you bring a new aspect to the conversation. We're talking about food safety. Nothing is more important to Canadians at the end of the day than food safety. It's next to our health care, and those things are linked.

You talked a little about bovine growth hormone. I wonder if you could speak to us about the safety for human consumption of this hormone and what you think the implications will be in having U.S. milk coming over the border.

[Shiv Chopra]

Bovine growth hormone is just one of the hormones. Fortunately, it was not approved in Canada. We all know the history of what happened. A Senate committee prevented it, and I was the key witness there in how it was stopped in Canada.

Even though it was not approved in Canada, it was not banned. There's a big difference between those two. That means that dairy products from the U.S. continue to come in and are affecting the dairy industry adversely. That means all the dry milk, the cheese, the butter, and the ice cream are all coming in, and the same products are being made from the tainted milk coming from the United States.

The United States is the only country, not only in NAFTA but also in the TPP countries, where BGH remains approved. You can imagine what will happen if you allow the American milk to come in. Then some of our Canadian dairy industry may also want to do the same thing.

That's just one small problem with dairy farmers. I've heard it said that Canadian food products are the best or the safest in the world. I'll say it's exactly the opposite. Canadian food has become the most toxic on earth because we are breaking our own law.

I'll give you an example. Other beef hormones are being used in Canada and the United States, and these beef hormones—

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I am sorry, Dr. Chopra. I am going to have to interrupt, because I have to go to another witness. I apologize. Thank you for that. If you can provide us with some information in writing, that would be great.

I want to flip over to jobs and talk about the implication for jobs. I thank Mr. Benson and Mr. Froelich for bringing that aspect forward. We know there is potential compensation that exists for dairy farmers. You represent workers who are deeply connected to that chain.

I wonder if you could speak to us about what you think the implications for our supply-managed systems will be with the additional access that TPP countries will have to our market.

[Phil Benson]

I will start, and Mr. Froelich will finish.

Just on Mr. Chopra's point, and we raised it.... As people in Canada or our foreign partners, especially CETA partners, realize that our milk could be tainted, it may in fact affect sales.

For us, it is not just dairies; it is through the entire supply chain. We are not sure how.... For instance, is McDonald's going to get a quota? The answer is, they might. Is Walmart going to get a quota? The answer is, they might. That is why we have to be in those parties. It is not just dairy.

Just last week, I think, there was an announcement here in Ottawa that 100 dairy workers, Teamsters, are going to lose their jobs. We have had 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost since the trade deals came in. They haven't been replaced by the same kind of jobs.

Mr. Froelich, just direct for the workers.

[Dave Froelich]

I think it goes back to the issue of the modelling that was available through the NAFTA process but isn't available now. We know there is milk coming in. We don't know what effect that is going to have and how it is going to impact folks down through the supply chain.

We know there is a process for a modernization fund that is available, and we are suggesting that the workers, not just the farmers, who are going to be affected have access to some of that funding.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

It is really unclear whether or not that funding will actually exist. It wasn't in the budget. Now we are hearing from the finance minister himself that the money will come after the agreement is signed. I think this is cold comfort to dairy farmers and those in the supply chain.

[Phil Benson]

What is interesting, when I am listening to some of the testimony, is that some of the proponents talk about opportunity, especially on the business side, and how great this is going to be, how wonderful this deal is. As we said in our presentation, if it was such a great deal, you would think that dairies, faced with this great opportunity, would reach into their pockets willingly and spend money to grow their market. We would like to see that modelling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

That wraps up your time, Ms. Ramsey.

We are going to move over to the Liberals. Mr. Peterson, you have five minutes.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for being here today and sharing your positions on what, as you can tell, is a big trade agreement. Obviously there are some differing points of view on whether or not it is going to be a positive agreement for Canada.

I want to start with the Grain Growers. Could you elaborate on the importance of exports to your industry, and how opening up new markets is key to the ongoing success of the grain industry in Canada?

[Margaret Hansen]

Sure. Virtually 90% of canola and 65% of wheat are exported. We produce in vast excess of what we could ever use in Canada, and we need to be able to access other places in the world.

Open markets are all that we are really asking for, a chance to be competitive. We have great technology and great farmers, who are able to do so much. Our yields have increased. We have improved agronomy and seeds, and we are very well positioned to meet the demand of growing markets in the world. We just want the opportunity to make our living from the marketplace.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you. I don't know if our seed guys want to let us know their thoughts on that.

[Dave Carey]

Thanks. Yes, exports are extremely important to our members, again, in excess of.... They are probably a low conservative of $450 million, but more like $550 million. Those are the last numbers we have from Agriculture Canada for the seed side.

We see trade as a good thing. We import a lot in Canada, too, on the seed side, and we export a lot. We don't see that as a threat. We see it as an opportunity. A trade deal like this puts Canada on a level playing field, and we compete with much larger players. As our colleagues, the Grain Growers, said, we are ready to export.

[Dan Wright]

She touched on it a little bit: our increase in yields, better agronomy, better technology that we are using, integrated farming systems, and new technology in seeds.

Ontario is a great example. Ten years ago, we were a net importer of corn. Now we are a net exporter. When we talk to Ontario grain farmers, one of the questions we ask them as the seed sector is how come we are exporting more, and they say, “Because we are growing more. Our demand locally has been the same, and now we have more opportunity. We are growing more bushels of corn per acre. We have an opportunity to export.”

Having open, clear, transparent, and predictable ways of opportunity is really important from an export standpoint. Our customers, the farmers, are producing more. Having more markets is extremely important for them.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Okay. Thanks for that.

My next question deals with the trades and the employment component of this agreement.

Mr. Wayland, do you see an opportunity at all for Canadian-trained skilled labour to perhaps go into these countries? Is that opportunity there under this agreement, and if so, do you see it being tapped into?

[Matt Wayland]

Through the agreement it is possible for contractors or Canadians to go work in those areas. In our industry, in terms of what would typically happen, I could see them going maybe to Australia, where there are similar practices and similar wage scales, but going to Malaysia or Mexico, that's not going to happen. The contractors would maybe bring one or two, or a couple of supervisory roles, and the rest would be workers from those countries.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Do you have something to add, Mr. Benson?

[Phil Benson]

I think Mr. Wayland covered that for me.