International Trade Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome today. Thank you for your presentations.

As you can see, the diversity of opinions at the table just reflects the diversity of industry across Canada in terms of what we should do and how we should do it. As a government, it's about finding balance and making sure that when we move ahead, the gains offset any negativity. Will everybody win? No. They never do, even in business, but at the end of the day, it's our job to make sure that those are mitigated as close to zero as we possibly can.

First, to Unifor, thank you for your presentation. With 310,000 workers Canada-wide, you made the statement that jobs are important. That's absolutely true. Every job is important. I just wonder, if we pull back from a trade economy—I mean, one in five jobs in Canada, including those of some of your members, depend on trade—what do we do in the interim? Do you see a lag, a downtime, in there? If we pull back from some of these and the U.S. goes ahead and we don't, what do we do in the interim as we renegotiate, or find willing partners to renegotiate, on a new trade agenda?

[Lana Payne]

That's a lot of ifs in there.

If the U.S. signs, which I think is a very big if at the moment.... If you watch what's going on in U.S. politics, you'll see that both the Republican front-runner and the Democratic front-runner have said no to the TPP.

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

They are also going to tear up NAFTA.

[Lana Payne]

Well, the Republicans are going to tear up NAFTA.

We are not saying we'd pull back from a trade economy. Unifor has never said that, so please don't—

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

That wasn't my point, either. It was, what do we do in the interim?

[Lana Payne]

Do you want an answer to the question?

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

Please.

[Lana Payne]

We are not saying we'd pull back from a trade economy. Indeed, the minister herself is saying that we want to change how we do trade in Canada. We are a big supporter of trade. A lot of our members get their jobs through trade.

You do have to balance risks and benefits. While a smaller industry—no offence, guys—may benefit a little bit, there are going to be very negative impacts on a lot of larger industries.

I mentioned forestry earlier. A lot of our members in Atlantic Canada work in the forestry sector. There was a side letter signed under the TPP that deals with forest products and the export of raw logs. This is a big issue, obviously, in B.C. They've made an agreement that it is going to be advanced, and that these rules on raw exports are going to be rewritten or renegotiated in five years. This is a big concern when we have a lot of members who work in secondary processing of logs.

As a country, we have to consider this. If these trade agreements don't allow us to have secondary jobs in processing and it's just a matter of sending our raw products to other countries, whether it's in forestry or fisheries, is that really a benefit to Canada, or is it a benefit to some company that's going to have a bigger bottom line at the end of the day?

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

No, value-added is where it's at.

Mr. Hoffman, you made a point in talking about moving into new markets and actually developing products for that line.

Peter, I know we've had this discussion as well. You're talking about an ingredient strategy, but the ingredients in Japan are different from the ingredients in the U.S., so it's always about staying one step ahead and offering that next product.

I'm not going to ask for dollar values, but how much of what you do—and you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars here—goes into R and D, goes into that innovation line and that thinking for the next use?

[David Hoffman]

We're innovating all the time on the production end. We're funding research into better growing techniques, so that's ongoing. That's been extremely beneficial to the growers. We're looking at research on how to improve productivity within our factories, so that's continuous. In terms of market development, we do that as a company, and we also do that through the industry trade organization, so that's ongoing, too.

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

Thank you.

[Peter Rideout]

I'll add to that. We're very much in the ingredient business and innovation in terms of new product development. To some extent we're still in the ingredient business, but also in developing consumer food products ourselves. You don't want to make that jump too quickly and end up trying to sell to your customers' customers, which is not a go-ahead prospect.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I have a comment, Mr. Hoffman.

I went to agriculture college, but I was visiting there lately, and they've developed a new sprayer that I think you guys developed in partnership. It has some kind of infrared and it only zaps the weeds, whereas previously everything would get sprayed, so it was a big waste and harder on the environment. That's where innovation comes from. It was good to see the co-operation with the local university in getting that machine, which just zaps what has to be zapped. It was quite innovative, so you guys are coming up with new ideas.

[David Hoffman]

Yes. This is a precision sprayer that we developed along with the agricultural college, the Dalhousie agricultural faculty.

It's using cameras on the sprayer to identify the different plants in the fields. Some of them, of course, are blueberry plants, but others may be weeds and less desirable. It would direct the farming application very specifically to where it was needed, so it would be both environmentally friendly and efficient. We had John Deere visit us to find out how to do it, so that was interesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It seemed to work on the hilly acres around here.

We're going to move over now to the Liberals and Mr. Dhaliwal.

You have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the panel members and also to brothers and sisters from Unifor.

Ms. Payne, there are over 27,600 Unifor workers in B.C. as well, and thank you for the work that you do.

Over the last little while, we have heard different perspectives from a whole lot of people. On one side, people are coming to us and saying that TPP is a job booster or employment booster. On the other hand, people like yourself and Mr. Furlong are coming to us and saying that it is an employment killer.

Would you be able to give specific components of the TPP that you see as being the main reason for your thinking?

[Lana Payne]

Could you just repeat that? There was some noise over there. Just repeat the last part of the question, please.

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

I would like to see the specific components of the TPP that are going to affect the way your thinking is.

[Lana Payne]

I think when you talk about renegotiating a trade deal or going back to the table, you have to actually look at what the problems are with it now, some of which I've outlined here. Ultimately, in Canada and around the world, we're not an island unto ourselves. That's why we trade. However, there is different thinking about trade now in the world. It would be incumbent on Canada, as I think our minister is trying to do, to have a bold and new conversation about what trade looks like and what trade agreements look like.

There are so many flaws in this agreement that it would take a lot of fixing. Yes, there will be, I think, 3% of new markets opened up in terms of who we already trade with at the moment, but we already trade with 97% of the countries included in the TPP. It's ridiculous that we're thinking about giving away so much, particularly with auto jobs and potentially forestry jobs and a lot of other rural jobs in Atlantic Canada. There are just too many losses, I think, and very, very few benefits if any at all.

Not to go on too much, but look at all of the studies done, and not just studies by left-wing or progressive economists. Even the C.D. Howe Institute has done a study that basically has said that this deal is a wash. There are no true benefits to it and—

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

Businesses are looking for a level playing field when it comes to doing business on the international scene. I am quite protective about seeing that everyone has a level playing field.

Blueberries and salmon are the big commodities for us in British Columbia. That's what I see here, as well.

I'm all in favour of value-added product, so our local people are able to get high-paying jobs and make profits. How would panels like this get that level playing field if we don't sign the TPP?

[Lana Payne]

We're not getting a level playing field with the TPP. There have been a number of studies on the impact, for example, for the auto sector. If you look at what's happening, it's not a level playing field when we say that you no longer have to have the same percentage of Canadian-made parts to go into these cars. This is why we're going to end up losing 20,000 jobs. How is that a level playing field for workers in Canada and for the companies that employ those workers?

It's not just the unions saying that. Ford Canada has said that this is a bad deal.

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

Mr. Hoffman, do you want to add something to the comment?

[David Hoffman]

For our industry, I think trade is critical. We cannot survive on the domestic market, so we start with that.

From a world perspective, this is where wild blueberries are produced, so we have to have access to markets. I think that the broader the access, the better. I know that the same applies to cultivated blueberries in British Columbia. The volume of cultivated blueberries grown there is way more than this country can consume, so it has to have access to export markets.

For this industry, where we can develop those trade agreements it's beneficial, and it's critically important in the long term.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

That wraps up your time, Mr. Dhaliwal.

We're going to move over to the NDP now.

Ms. Ramsey, you have the floor for five minutes.