International Trade Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[Craig Avery]

That's right, yes.

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

Have you ever thought about...because down east, we get lobster, but it's not part of our culture.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

This is down east. You're central.

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

Yes, I guess I am. Well, we're not really central. Winnipeg is central. The west calls us east.

We don't think about the lobster until we come here. Has there been a movement or a plan to introduce Canada more to...when the lobster festival is on, to spread it across the country?

[Craig Avery]

As Ian mentioned in earlier, the Fishermen's Association have taken the initiative of our own branding. This summer, for instance, I was in Calgary at the stampede. We're going back out there again next week, and we're trying to expand those partners all over Canada.

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

Good, congratulations.

Mr. MacPherson, did you have a comment you wanted to make?

[Ian MacPherson]

I was just going to add that I think we all realize there needs to be a multi-pronged approach. We've historically been dependent on one or two pretty key markets, and we want to diversify, but not neglect our domestic market either.

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

It's kind of a shame that those Americans are getting all that good lobster. We should be eating it in the rest of Canada.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have over a minute and a half.

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

Good. We'll go back to potatoes.

We just mentioned briefly that figure they gave us, 1.5 billion, and we talked about the history of the potato, how it became the European staple diet in the 1700s, how it took over the grain, and the fact that in Asia, rice is still the staple diet.

As an organization, you must be considering that this potential for growth could suddenly give you a huge market. Is that something you're prepared for when that does happen? Because all of us know potatoes are just the best food there is.

[Greg Donald]

Actually, Asian-Pacific countries would represent probably one of the largest growth areas, particularly in processed products. We're experiencing that today, and certainly that's been a major growth area for the processing sector of the industry. That's there today.

Obviously, from Prince Edward Island's perspective, there are only so many potatoes that we can produce. I had the pleasure of coming in earlier and hearing some of the comments from some of the other groups. So there is capacity on our island, and as we focus on going forward, as in any business it's about how we can better differentiate ourselves, get a premium for our product, and at the same time improve our productivity. That's where the focus is, and to do that, the focus is on rotations and improving from that perspective.

Some of those countries in Asia are large potato producers as well, which is worth noting. I think we know China, for example, produces 20 times more potatoes than Canada, and last year they announced potatoes as their new staple for food production.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Your time is up, Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

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

Thank you to the panel members.

Mr. Donald, you mentioned some of the markets that you have access to when it comes to potatoes. Which markets do you see the most potential in through increased access in the event of ratifying the TPP?

[Greg Donald]

With the TPP in particular, again noting that it's important that through the agreement we maintain the existing business we do with the U.S., just to point out that it's obviously a very significant market for us. Another one I'll bring up is Japan. Most certainly Japan already has no tariffs on potatoes, seed and table potatoes. We do not have access to that market.

Currently, the U.S. exports about $9.3 million into Japan. That would certainly be a country that I would highlight as an opportunity to have access to that market. Certainly, in particular, some of the other Asia-Pacific countries would be opportunities, certainly fries, which I know, processed products—we've talked to Cavendish—and also fresh and seed potatoes.

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

When I was growing up, I never heard about fries and chips in India, for example. You mentioned China is already producing its own potatoes. Even though India is not part of the TPP, do you see a future there when it comes to P.E.I. farmers?

[Greg Donald]

Yes. India, I believe—I'd have to call a friend—might be the second-largest potato producer in the world. Don't quote me on that. It's a very large producer. There are opportunities, yes. Seed potatoes, new varieties that can provide for specific needs are an opportunity. P.E.I. has an excellent reputation in growing good quality seed, so that's an opportunity. On the processing products as well that would be an opportunity, yes.

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

Mr. MacPherson, I enjoyed the lobster, and as my friend Dave on the other side said, we should have access. In B.C. lobster is very seasonal as well. Ratifying the TPP, and I hear that you support that, will benefit the P.E.I. fellows here.

[Ian MacPherson]

Yes. Certainly, we don't want to go back to where we were in 2012 where our supply far exceeded demand, and so there has been a lot of hard work in developing those new markets.

I think we want to be very cautious not to all of a sudden go for being dependent on two markets to being dependent on a couple of markets in another part of the world. That makes no sense. We're trying to be strategic in the companies we're working with. There are markets that are more focused on quality than price and those are the markets we want to pursue.

Certainly there are those types of countries within this proposed agreement.

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

Overall it depends on the young fellow. I see you have some reservations, Mr. MacPhee. What would you like to see, if we ratify? Is there anything you'd like to comment on to have part of the agreement that will help young people like yourself to get into farming and carry on the family traditions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have one minute.

[Jordan MacPhee]

It's about diversification of the production systems we have on P.E.I. It's for all industries across Canada. If you're diversifying the types of industries that a person can make money at, it's easier for young people to break into the industry. If there's already an intense level of market saturation and ownership of that market by existing producers how are young people going to break in?

When you centralize production into just a few systems rather than many ways to make money, it's difficult. If we created deals across Canada and with other countries that made it easier for us to make money from selling different products, like a mixed vegetable farm or anything from IT, instead of it being from people who already own the market.... I don't know how that's done, but I think this is a way of further centralizing the economy in existing hands, rather than making it easier for new people to break in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you for the presentations today.

Mr. MacPhee, you mentioned something that I want to dig into a little bit and that's the ISDS provision, the investor-state dispute settlement resolution process that exists in the TPP. For folks who don't know, in chapter 11 of NAFTA, it was the first time that two developed countries engaged in this type of an established resolution system together. Previously it was always a developing country coming to a developed one. What we've seen under NAFTA is we've become the most sued country in the world under this provision. So $190 million has been paid out, but the asks are now in the billions, and we have cases against us, currently, that are creeping that way because they simply contain this projected future loss number that's pulled out of the air.

We have a very progressive court system here in Canada, so this is where I think most Canadians question the need for this non-reciprocal...essentially a tribunal that exists with three for-profit arbitrators determining whether or not we can legislate for good in Canada.

You mentioned that it weakens legislative ability, and as a member of Parliament that's a deep concern to me. We see cases across Canada—you mentioned the quarry case, in particular—and because you are here speaking mostly about the environment, you know there's a huge human cost to our not being able to legislate for the good of Canadian people, in particular around our environment.

I want to ask you if you think that the ISDS will hinder our ability to legislate or regulate to essentially honour what we signed on to in Paris around our environmental commitments to Canadians.

[Jordan MacPhee]

I've read assurances that things like a carbon tax, for example, wouldn't fall under a challenge. I'm not sure why that falls outside the parameter of ISDS, but I've heard assurances that policy implementations like a carbon tax or the carbon pricing system in Canada in the future wouldn't be potentially under threat, but that's only one aspect of many ways to reduce carbon emissions.

If we're going to implement policies that promote local agriculture, for example, to try to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted through just flying food all over the world when it can be locally produced and consumed, a company from a TPP signatory might say that local agriculture policy affects our ability to break into the market because you're cancelling out all outside companies from being able to bid into that process. That's just one example.

If we have municipalities or provinces all across the country wanting to implement a local agricultural policy in the next couple of decades, and that is stopped—

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

They wouldn't be able to under TPP because of the standstill clause, so with anything that we attempt to regulate to improve that would fall under a public sphere, and certainly there are public sector workers in Environment Canada, we would run up against issues, I believe, in trying to implement legislation that would benefit Canadians. One of them that concerns me is the climate change targets that we've signed on to. If we try to do that after we sign, would we end up being sued by a corporation for attempting to do so? Would they claim that it was an unfair trade barrier to them? That's my concern.

I have another question about the potatoes, because we've been talking a lot about that. You mentioned that 81% of your trade is with the U.S., so I wonder, in signing the TPP, would that increase our ability to trade with the U.S., and would it change anything that exists currently with our relationship with the U.S. specifically?