International Trade Committee on Sept. 26th, 2016

[Jessica Smith]

It actually has to do with the side papers of the chapters where they talk about the temporary foreign workers. We were able to opt out of some industries versus others with most of them, but with Japan and Australia specifically, they're very open. It's not really part of the regulations. It's very much more of an open labour system as far as temporary foreign workers go. That's why I say those specifically.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Johnston, I am glad you have joined us today.

You talked about special packaging for Japan. Is that the only country requiring that type of packaging?

Are you having trouble hearing me?

[Peter Johnston]

I'm sorry, I missed that question. Could you repeat the question, please.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You talked about specific packaging, especially for Japan. Do other countries you export to have any other problems in terms of packaging?

[Peter Johnston]

Yes, the packaging for Japan is very specific to Japan. It cannot go to any other country, so the regulatory barrier, if you will, ensures that we only produce packaging of finished products for that marketplace. Some other countries, including within the TPP, are more open to common packaging that we can market in various countries, but Japan is one that has very specific packaging and labelling requirements.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

The document you have submitted to us indicates that Japan and Vietnam apparently impose the highest tariffs on your exports. Would those tariffs be eliminated once the TPP was adopted?

[Peter Johnston]

That is correct. I believe there's a phase-in period of three to five years, along those lines. Elimination of those tariffs is critically important for us. That would benefit our business significantly.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay.

Do you think you could increase your potato exports to Japan and Vietnam?

[Peter Johnston]

With the current tariff rates in place, it is very challenging for us to compete globally with other suppliers. With these tariffs removed, absolutely. It really opens the door for us to increase the volume of product we can market into that expanding marketplace.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Could you meet a higher demand? Do you have the facilities required to meet those countries' demand and increase your potato sales?

[Peter Johnston]

The North American suppliers certainly do. Cavendish Farms alone does not. However, it certainly allows us to plan longer term from a capital investment perspective at our various facilities and that has a trickle-down effect right through our suppliers, through our growers, the agricultural community, and so forth.

There are certainly opportunities within our network to expand and there are other areas where we produce beside Prince Edward Island. I talked about Ontario and Alberta. These are markets that we can serve from these facilities as well with increased volume, absolutely.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

That's significant. It would basically lead to investment opportunities. Thank you for the answer.

I would like to put a question to Leigh Sprague.

Earlier, my colleague Mr. Ritz talked about the Canadian definition of public purposes. What would you like the Canadian definition to be? I felt that you were very apprehensive about public purposes. What are your views on that issue?

[Leigh Sprague]

Certainly, I think we would be best served by the most broad and liberal definition that we could give to “public purpose”. If there was an agreed upon definition it would have to be that, anything that has a public element tied to it. For example, for ancillary health services like cleaning, is that for a public purpose or not? It serves the public, but you could argue that it isn't.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Madam Lapointe.

We're going to move over to Mr. Dhaliwal, for five minutes.

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

Thank you to the panel members.

I have a quick question for Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston, if we don't ratify the TPP, which markets will take your import shares?

[Peter Johnston]

Hypothetically, if the TPP is ratified and Canada does not sign up, if you will, and other markets, the United States and Australia do, those countries are french fry producers and would certainly benefit from that, and we would certainly pay a penalty for not signing up.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Smith, I came to Canada 32 years ago and spoke very little English. You mentioned the word “engineer” in your presentation. I did go to the University of Calgary. I did my engineering degree. I was a professional engineer in Alberta as well as British Columbia, as a B.C. land surveyor. When you mentioned moving those particular trades into Canada under the TPP, because you need to be part of a professional organization to call yourself an engineer, I don't believe that those engineers who do not have their designation will be able to work on Canadian projects.

On the other hand, you mentioned the temporary workers. I'm a big supporter of permanent immigrants because of some of the reasons you mentioned, the exploitation of labour, and particularly for women.

Ms. Ludwig mentioned that we are looking at the temporary foreign worker program. Do you have any suggestions on how this program should be tailored to make sure that those individuals are not the victims of exploitation?

[Jessica Smith]

I read the report that came out last week about the temporary foreign workers specifically. Within our country, they did discuss trying to set up some different systems, because most people won't call the telephone line that they could call because there's a risk of retribution from their employers. I think the easiest solution you have is to look more toward where we clearly have a need, to the permanent residency option at a quicker rate, or even at the beginning, because clearly we have that need in our labour market to bring in these temporary foreign workers. If they work in our country, they deserve to live in our country.

Tracey Ramsay said a minute ago that this is great for our country and we really should do that, but the TPP circumvents those rules anyway. Even if we were to do that within our nation, the TPP would still not be beholden to those rules.

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

You mentioned we need permanent immigration. There was a time that we needed engineers, doctors, accountants, but now our own children, in fact, are.... There is a brain drain to the U.S. particularly as far as the medical profession is concerned. Instead of those particular professional people, don't we need a workforce that will be able to sustain our manufacturing, our agriculture, and our seafood industries, with lesser qualifications?

[Jessica Smith]

Do you think we should lessen qualifications? Is that what you're saying?

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

That's right. We don't necessarily need all the doctors, engineers, accountants and lawyers, but we need a general workforce that should be able to sustain both industries that need those temporary workers right now.

[Jessica Smith]

Yes. As I said, I think that's really important. I think that's why we have the labour market impact assessment, to show the industries that do need that workforce, so that's why it's so important that we hold the TPP countries to that same standard, to ensure that Canadians who need those jobs are given the opportunity to get those jobs as well. Yes, it is important that we do need to get those workforces brought up, so that's why we have the labour market impact assessment. I think it's really important that we do bring in those workers. I think it's really important we bring in those workers in a way that's going to be a very positive change for them, like permanent residency options as opposed to being temporary foreign workers for a year at a time. I know that will change if the report is approved that was given last week, but as I said, we have to hold the countries that are part of the TPP accountable as well; otherwise, our talking about the Canadian temporary foreign worker program is wonderful, and it really does need those revamps, but we also need to be reminded that these countries will be able to completely circumvent that based on the TPP.

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

Is there a particular—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Your time is—