International Trade Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Paul Lansbergen]

Correct.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

As you know, we've seen a fairly steady decline in wild-caught salmon throughout the west coast of North America. I know that the California salmon fishery is shut down entirely this year. I'm just wondering, if we deal with the science...and the government here has promised to move those fish farms onto the land to deal with some of the issues around the effects they're having on wild populations. I'm just wondering if your group is supportive of that, and if you have any concerns about how slowly that's happening.

[Paul Lansbergen]

Madam Chair, I think the concerns we have are that the impacts that we're seeing on the wild Pacific salmon are quite complex. The impact is much greater on the natural mortality, not the fishing mortality. The fishing effort is not the problem, primarily.

I remember that a few years ago, when I was reading the recovery strategy for the southern resident killer whale, one of the science statements was that for Chinook salmon, which is the primary prey of the southern resident killer whale, we could shut down the Chinook salmon fishery completely and it would not change the trajectory of its recovery.

It's unfortunate that fishing mortality, the access to fisheries, is the easiest lever for us to manipulate when various fish stocks or other species are under threat. That's not necessarily the root cause. If we don't address the root cause, then it's just superficial. I think that for salmon we need to look at all the causes and address those.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have one minutes and 15 seconds.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'll just ask one more question on the same line. You mentioned the Species at Risk Act. In the United States, they have the EPA. Is there any difference between how the Americans deal with species at risk versus how we do?

I sat on the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada for 10 years. One thing we noticed was that when we recommended that a fish species be designated as threatened or endangered, only 50% of those species was actually designated. The rest weren't, because of socio-economic concerns, whereas in other groups of animals, plants and everything, it was more or less 100%.

There was a real influence of the fisheries interests in keeping fisheries open that guided that listing or not. Is that different in the United States? If we dealt with real science, if we brought in more science, we would have a lot more fish labelled as endangered.

[Paul Lansbergen]

I don't know the specifics of the U.S. regulations for species at risk beyond some of the impacts from the MMPA.

I will say that in terms of whether a particular fish stock gets listed under SARA or is addressed through fisheries management provisions under the Fisheries Act, I'd like to see the best tool used for the job. Sometimes that might be rebuilding plans and other measures under the Fisheries Act rather than a more blanket prohibition that would come from Species at Risk Act. There are some issues at play there. I'll leave it at that, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Seeback, for five minutes, please.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I'm actually going to move a motion. This motion was distributed previously, I believe. The clerk could resend it so everyone would have a copy of it. I tabled the motion on May 1, 2024. I'm going to proceed to read the motion right now.

That, given that the recently proposed regulations on recycled content and labelling rules for plastic have raised concerns with Canada's largest bilateral trading partner, the United States, and that the Canadian Produce Marketing Association has flagged serious concerns about the risk of the proposed regulations impacting economic competitiveness and raising food prices by over 30%, the committee hold no less than 3 meetings on this topic; that the Minister of International Trade appear for at least 1 hour; and that the committee hear from other concerned stakeholders to ensure Parliamentarians are informed about the risks to Canadian trade the proposed regulations present; and that the committee report back to the House.

This motion is very important for a number of reasons. The current government has managed to do a number of own goals in our trading relationship with the United States, causing trade irritants, especially as we move forward on a study on the review of CUSMA. This is an irritant that is already being raised by the United States.

In fact, on March 21, Congressman Sessions wrote to Ambassador Hillman and said the following:

I write today to express concerns from Texas plastic manufacturers and supply chain affiliates regarding Canada's proposed Canadian Plastics Registry, directed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Environment Canada. The registry mandates exhaustive tracking and reporting of plastics, which raises several issues: 1. Violation of Trade Agreements: The “Canadian Plastics Registry” seems to violate USMCA's environmental and trade provisions, especially Chapter 24, sections 2, 4 and 5, potentially undermining established trade agreements.

2. Disclosure of Proprietary Information. The registry requires revealing mostly proprietary information, increasing antitrust risks and vulnerability to lawsuits, especially during data standardization across various government levels.

3. Vagueness in Chain of Custody.

4. International System Discrepancies.

Congressman Sessions has written to Ambassador Hillman and suggested that you promptly engage with Canadian officials for adjustments.

This is now being raised as a trade irritant within the existing relationship between Canada and the United States, but it's actually more serious than that. The Chemistry Industry Association gave testimony at Canada's environmental committee about how a single-use plastics ban impacted 13,000 to 20,000 direct jobs and as many as 26,000 to 40,000 indirect jobs.

Now, this is where it gets very concerning. The Canadian Produce Marketing Association report says that the premature withdrawal of current plastic packaging could have far-reaching unintended consequences: The cost of food loss and alternative packaging will be $6 billion. There will be a half-million metric tonne increase in food losses and a loss of access to imported fruit and produce. It will increase food inflation, possibly to a very high degree. As well, emissions will likely increase the cost more, by up to 150%.

At a time when Canadians are suffering from some of the worst food inflation in 40 years, the current Liberal government has decided that they're going to make it even more expensive for Canadians to have access to fresh fruit and vegetables with this ill-conceived plastics ban they're seeking to put forward.

There are significant consequences to this. An in-depth Deloitte report on the Liberals' P2 plastic ban and its impact on the fresh fruit and vegetable sector has revealed that the policy could do exactly the following: increase the cost of fresh produce by 35%; reduce fresh produce availability to Canadians by over 50%; cost the industry $5.6 billion; increase fresh produce waste by more than 50%; increase greenhouse gases from the produce supply chain by more than 50%; increase health care costs by over $1 billion per year because of lower availability of fresh produce, and disproportionately impact the cost of food for rural and remote regions and, of course, for people who are already struggling to afford food.

I think this is a very relevant study for us to undertake for two reasons.

First of all, we now have a long list of trade irritants that the Liberal government is causing just as we're moving into the review of the CUSMA.

We can talk about the digital services tax. When I was down in the United States meeting with representatives, they told me that the threat to unilaterally impose the digital services tax will actually.... They considered it an eight out of 10 on a scale of serious impact to the Canadian trading relationship. We now have the proposed plastics ban, and there have been many others that we have talked about at this committee.

Madam Chair, I believe that this motion is in order. It's an urgent issue and one that the committee should study.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Just for the witnesses.... One of the members has introduced and moved a motion—you heard Mr. Seeback reference it—on another issue, so if you could just hold on for a few minutes here, we will see where we are going with this at this time.

We have the witnesses for another half an hour. Is there any debate or discussion on this? I think I have Mr. Sidhu on this motion.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair.

Look, we do have witnesses here. We have committee business scheduled today. We can discuss this motion then, out of respect for the witnesses' time.

I'm not sure what the will of the committee is, but maybe we can hear from some of the other members or can debate this. I think, out of respect for the witnesses, we should carry on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

What are the thoughts? We have these witnesses for another half an hour. Could we hold off and deal with this at five o'clock?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I kept my comments to my allotted time. If we can just vote on it and move on....

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think there is probably going to be a desire for discussion on it.

Mr. Cannings.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I think it would be more appropriate to put this off until five o'clock if there's any other discussion. I may not have much to say, but in terms of respect for the witnesses, I think we have this time allotted today for committee work, so let's do it then, if that's all right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have your remarks on the record, as I know you wanted to do, so can we leave this until five o'clock so that we can get another half an hour?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I would rather vote now than go in camera and have votes on it. That's my preference. I would prefer a vote. If the Liberals don't want to vote on it, they can exercise their options to do that, but my preference is that we have a vote on this right now. It can be over in less than a minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Well, I think there's indication that there's going to be discussion on this motion. It's important, and I sense that there's going to be discussion.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Then they should either have discussion or avail themselves of whatever remedies they seek to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We will have a discussion or I will dismiss the witnesses because there's no sense keeping the witnesses sitting here for another half an hour while we discuss this.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

How about I propose a friendly amendment and we move on back to the witnesses and then we can get to a vote maybe? Then everybody knows what's on the table instead of going right to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have an amendment.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Yes. I will do this quickly so that we can get back to the witnesses.

I hear what the member opposite is saying in terms of trade and the impacts this may have, but we also need to consider the impacts that this has on the environment and on Canadians in terms of plastic pollution and plastic waste, with some ending up in our own bodies. Therefore, I'm proposing a friendly amendment.

On the fourth line, it would say, after the words “over 30%”:

and that plastic packaging compromises over 1/3 of plastics put on the Canadian market, making them an important source of plastic waste, and that the Canadian Produce Marketing Association is a partner of the Canada Plastics Pact which supports the goal of “100% of plastic packaging is designed to be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025”, and that plastic waste and pollution pose a threat to our environment, and that studies are showing that plastic is [also] found in our bodies, and that studies have shown a circular economy for plastics that keeps plastics in our economy and out of our environment and landfills could create 40,000 jobs in Canada by 2030, the committee hold no less than three meetings on this topic; and that the committee hear from other concerned stakeholders and Relevant Government officials, to ensure Parliamentarians are informed about the risks and benefits to Canadian trade and our environment the proposed regulations present; and that the committee report back to the House.

I think we have a printed copy going around.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The first thing I would say is that it is not a friendly amendment. A friendly amendment is a minor change that most parties would agree with. This is a substantive amendment and one that I can say very clearly I do not support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Does anyone want to have further discussion on the proposed amendment or the motion itself?

All right. I'm going to ask for a vote that we hold both of these things down until 5 p.m., and I ask those who are in favour of holding this down until 5 p.m. to please indicate so. Otherwise, we will dismiss the witnesses so that—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I don't think you can suggest that matters not be dealt with. It's the committee that would have to suggest that. If the Liberal members want to adjourn debate on this until then, they can do that, but I don't think you can put forward a motion to hold down an item for 40 minutes.