International Trade Committee on May 9th, 2022

[Janelle Whitley]

Thanks.

Looking at the Indonesian market, we see an opportunity for all canola products, seed, oil and meal. With respect to the list of non-tariff barriers, I think we often think of a non-tariff barrier as an issue or barrier that we're currently facing that is preventing current access. However, a non-tariff barrier could also be something that is impacting our decision to sell into a market. From a canola perspective, we often need approvals of biotech varieties in markets before we will consider them. If we're using a crop protection product, we also need to have a maximum residue limit in place. There are also some barriers that need to be resolved before we can even consider selling into a market. There are two sides to the non-tariff barrier conversation or perspective.

As Dave said, as far as Indonesia goes, we are very much looking for clear, prescriptive rules on how agriculture biotechnology will be managed and how missing and misaligned approvals of crop protection products will be considered, to ensure that we have a pathway and an environment in place, before we sell into that market, that allow our exports to pivot easily between the two without having to go through all the regulatory approvals before they can access them.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you very much for the answers.

I'd like to direct the following question, through the chair, to Mr. Stordy.

How do you believe we can best diversify pork exports, specifically within the ASEAN region, and what sort of impact would a diversified market have on your members?

[Gary Stordy]

There is a lot of incredible opportunity within that region. Pork is the preferred protein. At the moment, even though there are some issues, there is opportunity for growth.

We do look at some of the free trade agreements and the terms and at building bilateral relationships. Doing so provides the opportunity for our industry to be flexible on where product is going to be shipped.

To keep it short, essentially we look at it as—and I apologize—taking the animal and disassembling it into as many pieces as possible and maximizing the revenue. One week it may be in the United States. The next week it may be in Japan, for example. However, if there were, perhaps, a problem that prevented us from shipping to, for example, the United States or Japan, some of those agreements and FTA terms and relationships we have built would allow us to deviate or move that product somewhere else efficiently. That makes a difference.

Unfortunately, on the pork side, we've had too many experiences in which we've depended on a market and something has changed. The best example would be Russia or China, with 500 to 600 containers on the water at any time en route to that country. FTAs and bilateral agreements allow us to look into options to move that product somewhere else so there is not as large a financial impact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. You have 24 seconds—not enough time.

Mr. Lewis, you have five minutes.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, my question is for Mr. Vander Ploeg with the Cattle Feeders' Association.

We're talking about trade and I'm excited to talk about trade and the opportunities, as I'm the eternal optimist, but I'm curious. I'm just thinking about droughts and floods out west. I'm thinking about our grain farmers and I'm thinking about the strikes we had with the trains. I'm thinking about all of our cattle that we couldn't get feed to because we shipped so much to the United States.

Is there a backstop here to make sure that we don't experience this in Canada again so we can be that great trade partner with the ASEAN communities?

[Casey Vander Ploeg]

It's a very good question. My crystal ball isn't always very clear on these things, but the industry certainly had its share of black swan events over the last two years, just one after another. They were definitely challenging times for producers.

I think one of the most important things here is to understand that to the extent possible our government policies around our trade issues and agriculture in general should help position agriculture to be that credible supplier to the world. Oftentimes, some of these things we can't help. Floods and fires, we can't help. Government is there through programs like AgriRecovery, for example, which helped.

Sometimes it very much is a homegrown issue. For example, with CP Rail, increasingly agriculture producers in the country are thinking that with the CP having a virtual monopoly in the west, we need to give serious consideration to whether this is an essential service or not. We need to pay attention to government policies and their ability to help agriculture be that consistent supplier to the world.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, sir, for that answer.

Through you, Madam Chair, my next question is for Ms. Citeau.

My riding is Essex. I'm down by the Windsor area. We're the Florida of Canada, but we also are the greenhouse nation of Canada. Ninety per cent of the produce that our greenhouse producers grow is exported to the United States, and 10%, generally speaking, stays in Canada. Is there an opportunity—and I'm asking you as the Agri-food Trade Alliance—for trade with the ASEAN market, or do they produce enough of their own vegetables, such as tomatoes and cucumbers or whatnot, to take care of themselves? Is there an opportunity there?

[Claire Citeau]

I can't speak for them because we don't represent them. We represent pretty much everybody else but the horticulture and the supply-managed sector.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Does anybody else have a feel for that?

[Dave Carey]

There are concerns around the perishability, just given that produce has such a short shelf life, and then the cost of refrigerating containers might make it cost prohibitive, but with root vegetables and things, it's probably an opportunity perhaps. That would be my take.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay, thank you.

I'll go back to you, Ms. Citeau.

You mentioned in your opening remarks about enhanced staffing. What type of enhanced staffing is that exactly and how many jobs would be tied to that?

[Claire Citeau]

I think similar to the content of the office that the grain sector or the meat sector is proposing, there needs to be more discussion as to where that would be and how many staff, which countries and so forth. Certainly the region, the Indo-Pacific region, has been identified as a place where there is a need for more, essentially, boots on the ground. Yes, there are excellent trade commissioners and an excellent service that is provided, but at times, there's a need to perhaps be more focused on the advocacy front and what is coming at us from the regulatory standpoint given the need, and the increased importance people around the world place on where their food comes from and how their food is produced. We see that happening actually across the world.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses. I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Koutrakis you have five minutes please.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm really pleased to be here with all of you this afternoon. This is my first time on this committee.

I thank all the witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Citeau, where do you see the greatest opportunities for your members to increase their exports in the ASEAN and Indo-Pacific regions?

What are the current barriers that you think Canada should be prioritizing for removal?

[Claire Citeau]

I'd be happy to send you the submissions we sent to the government through the Canada Gazette process.

In the ASEAN area in particular, the countries that are at the top of the list are Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand. Indonesia is there because of its size, growth and interest in Canadian products.

In terms of non-tariff barriers, they are really complex and varied. Some of these countries are putting in place, in some cases, market-distorting financial support measures. This is an issue that needs to be studied very closely and that concerns some of our members, particularly in the processing sector and in the sugar sector. Our members who are here have talked about some of the non-tariff barriers that exist. I know that the rest of our members will be presenting their views to this committee. I would invite them to give you details at that time.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Citeau.

Madam Chair, through you, I would like to ask Mr. Trew a question.

It was widely reported this morning that South Korea is positively considering joining an Indo-Pacific economic pact that is planned by the United States.

Could you please elaborate on your views on the inclusion of Korea in the CPTPP? Could you expand on that, given your expertise and your membership?

[Stuart Trew]

Was that the news that it wants to join the CPTPP and not the separate Biden administration-led process?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

That's correct.

[Stuart Trew]

Well, I suppose for Canada, it wouldn't have a huge impact, because we have a free trade agreement with South Korea. I can't speak to the motives of the current South Korean government as to why it would do this. I know that the previous government wasn't as interested as the current government is, so maybe it's a shift in direction based on the election. That's my impression.

In terms of the impact on Canada, I don't see it as having much of an impact.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Does anyone else want to chime in on that?

[Fawn Jackson]

Yes.

We would see it as something that would be very positive. We are at a significant tariff disadvantage in comparison to Australia and the United States. We have a number of barriers from the BSE era.

We would see South Korea's joining as potentially very positive for a rebalancing with some of our big competitors within the region. We see that as quite exciting.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Does anybody see a problem with the regulations within these various agreements that impede the trade and the competitiveness of Canada, whether it be on the Canadian side or any other jurisdiction we have agreements with? I'd be curious to hear if the current regulation, the environment, impedes in any way.

[Fawn Jackson]

I think it really depends on the agreement and the activity of some of those committees that Claire mentioned before, and the true dedication to resolving the issues that are brought forward. I would say that we have seen very good progression, through CPTPP, in addressing some of those issues we have.

In other agreements, also as Claire mentioned, for example, through CETA, we certainly see a lack of dedication to finding real solutions to be able to do trade in both directions. That's particularly why you'll hear this community speak very positively of CPTPP. It follows international guidelines that have been set out, whether it's through the OIE, which is international animal health, or through Codex, or these sorts of groups.

Those have to be our founding parameters of the future of trade. If one country says, “I want x”, and the next country says, “I want y”, well, all of a sudden, we've lost the ability to do meaningful trade.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We will move to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for two and a half minutes, please.