International Trade Committee on May 15th, 2023

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 65 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding.

Please also note that during the meeting it is not permitted to take pictures in the room or screenshots on Zoom.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning technical tests for witnesses, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required tests.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes in order to ensure that all members have full access to the translation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, November 25, the committee is continuing its study of non-tariff barriers in Canada's existing and potential international trade agreements.

We have with us today, from the Canadian American Business Council, Maryscott Greenwood, chief executive officer. It's nice to see you again, Scotty.

From the Canadian Canola Growers Association, we have Dave Carey, vice-president, government and industry relations, and Janelle Whitely, senior manager, trade and marketing policy, by video conference; from the Canadian Pork Council, Stephen Heckbert, executive director, and René Roy, chair; from the Canola Council of Canada, Chris Davison, vice-president, stakeholder and industry relations, by video conference; and from Cereals Canada, Mark Walker, vice-president, markets and trade, by video conference.

Welcome to all of you.

Ms. Greenwood, I invite you to do an opening statement of up to five minutes.

The floor is yours.

[Maryscott Greenwood, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council]

Hello, everyone.

I am pleased to be here today.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you again today.

The last time the chair and I were together was just a few short weeks ago at a parliamentary address and then a dinner that Canada hosted for the President of the United States. I did not travel up on Air Force One, however.

On the heels of President Biden's successful visit to Ottawa, we have a number of ideas about how to advance the world's most successful trading relationship. Today I will focus on one that cuts across every single sector in our joint economic space.

North Americans may not have heard of the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council, but whether you're a C-suite executive, a shareholder, a small business owner or just someone doing some shopping, the RCC is working to tackle the red tape and regulatory burdens that often vex consumers and businesses alike, not to mention the regulators themselves.

Differing national regulations and standards determine, for example, whether a product can go to market in Canada or the United States, which explains why Canadian consumers, for example, may be frustrated when they can't buy or access products they see advertised in the American media and vice versa.

An even bigger problem is that this tyranny of small differences reduces cross-border commerce, making it nearly impossible for many small businesses to build their customer base and grow their companies in neighbouring jurisdictions.

Indeed, differing regulations between the U.S. and Canada—the world's most successful trading partners—have had the unintended consequence of hindering the flow of goods and services in our integrated economy, raising prices and eating into business productivity and profitability on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.

For the past 12 years, the Regulatory Cooperation Council has been committed to ensuring that the rules and regulations involved in doing cross-border business are aligned whenever possible between the U.S. and Canada. The council also protects the health and safety of citizens and the environment on both sides of the border.

In a period of economic volatility, supply-chain challenges and extreme climate change events, these are especially important responsibilities, yet they've been semi-neglected in recent years.

The Canadian American Business Council successfully called for the creation of the RCC back in 2011. At our urging, the RCC was launched by President Barack Obama and then prime minister Stephen Harper to great fanfare among businesses on both sides of the border.

In its early years, the Canadian bureaucracy did most of the heavy lifting for the RCC—and that continues today, actually—first via the Privy Council and then via the Treasury Board Secretariat. In the United States, a White House entity with the Office of Management and Budget—the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA—plays that role.

Then came the Trump administration. To put it diplomatically, Canadian officials didn't find the Trump White House quite as easy to deal with. Long overdue efforts, actually, to renegotiate and modernize NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, now the USMCA or CUSMA, necessarily took centre stage.

Regulatory harmonization concurrently took a back seat, which is ironic, because the small and medium-sized companies most plagued by regulatory hurdles are the very firms that the U.S., Mexico and Canada want playing a greater role in North American trade under the USMCA.

It's time, then, to redouble our efforts. The timing, in fact, couldn't be more apt for a vow renewal, if you will, in a harmonization relationship that's grown more vital in light of global circumstances. The current economic realities demand attention and action.

The COVID-19 pandemic has vividly illustrated the vulnerabilities of our supply chains. Regulatory obstacles pose even more headaches for those navigating tenuous supply chains, but the pandemic also showed us that we can work across borders to deploy personal protective equipment and life-saving vaccines. We must use what we have learned since March 2020 to help the North American economy rebound by tackling counterproductive regulatory redundancy. Doing so will boost efficiencies in cross-border trade and ease supply chain woes, while cutting costs both for governments and for businesses of all sizes, as well as for everyday Canadians and Americans.

U.S. President Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have acknowledged that regulatory co-operation can promote economic growth, competitiveness and innovation and create jobs while protecting high standards of public health, welfare, safety and environmental protection. Kick-starting the RCC's efforts to achieve more regulatory harmony will bolster supply chain resiliency between the U.S. and Canada in crucial sectors that include medical devices, PPE, critical minerals, semiconductors, electric vehicles, batteries, solar energy and much more.

Regulatory differences are unintended trade barriers between the United States and Canada, and we are so grateful to this committee for taking on this important issue. Let's get back to work on the RCC.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Greenwood.

We have Mr. Carey, please, for up to five minutes.

[Dave Carey, Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear as part of this important study. I was with you not too long ago, wearing a different hat, but today I'm joined virtually by my colleague, Janelle Whitley, senior manager, trade and marketing policy, and we will be sharing our time for opening remarks.

CCGA represents Canada's 43,000 canola farmers on issues that impact their farms' success. As the world's largest exporter of canola, Canada exports 90% of what we grow as seed, oil or meal, and was valued at $14.4 billion in exports in 2022.

International trade underpins the canola sector's $29.9-billion annual economic contribution and its 200,000 Canadian jobs nationally. Canola's success is based on international trade and continual innovation. Landmark agreements such as CUSMA, CPTPP and CETA cover close to two-thirds of our markets and are fundamental to maintaining existing and building new customers.

Core tenets of these agreements are the elimination of tariffs to enable competitive access, clear rules of trade to provide predictability and transparency, and, importantly, a platform to strengthen trade relationships.

Today's study is timely. Agriculture trade is increasingly dominated by non-tariff trade barriers—measures detracting from these tenets and creating risk to grow and capitalize on market opportunities, adding costs to access certain markets and establishing barriers to needed innovation to advance agriculture's sustainability and resilience.

If not designed properly, the increase in policies and programs to advance our climate change and sustainable development goals can also undermine our trade policy objectives and competitiveness.

CETA provides a good example. Tariffs on canola were eliminated, creating new opportunities in the EU biofuels market, but the canola sector continues to lack market certainty. The agreement has been in place for over five years, and we continue to face non-scientific requirements for crop protection products, delays in approvals for new crop varieties from biotechnology, and differing approaches to environmental and social protections. While CETA provides the mechanisms to raise our concerns, it has yet to yield practical solutions and efforts to truly strengthen our trade relationship and offer predictability. We face the same issues with Mexico.

I will now turn it over to Janelle to comment on how this translates to the farm, and to offer some recommendations.

[Janelle Whitley, Senior Manager, Trade and Marketing Policy, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thanks, Dave.

How does this impact canola farmers? Most canola production is grown with herbicide-tolerant GM varieties, such as glyphosate resistance. Biotechnology is a key part of canola's sustainability story, enabling the widespread adoption of conservation tillage, improvements in soil health and reduction in other inputs. Responsible farming practices such as these allow farmers to sequester, on average, 11 million tonnes of GHGs in their fields each year. Crop protection products provide invaluable tools against pest, disease and agronomic pressures, protecting yield and farm profitability.

Without approvals in our export markets, our exports face zero tolerance for a canola biotech trait or crop protection product residue in an export shipment. This is an impossible proposition with our bulk handling system and multiple crops grown on farm. Canola farmers must select between market access or the adoption of innovation until the technology is recognized in our export market, if it is recognized. Often, this means farmers are not using the newest, best technologies, which have been deemed safe by our Canadian regulatory bodies based on robust scientific assessments.

These differences often come down to the use of precautionary principles and increasingly different views on sustainable agriculture. While we respect our partners' sovereign right to enact policies related to human and animal health and the environment, our landmark agreements indicate that such measures should be based on science, not create an unjustified barrier to trade, and provide guidelines to recognize equivalency.

In conclusion, we offer the following recommendations to your study as actions to maximize existing and future FTAs.

To fully capitalize on the benefits of trade, we need an ongoing commitment to resolving non-tariff barriers across government departments and at all levels. This will be key to expanding trade, investment and supply chain resilience under the Indo-Pacific strategy and to the success of the first ever Indo-Pacific agriculture and agri-food office.

Future agreements should incorporate trade-facilitative solutions to manage differences in innovation and sustainable agriculture. Both CUSMA and the CPTPP contain language on agriculture biotechnology that should be emulated. Recognition of international standards such as Codex would provide a solution to missing or different crop protection product registrations.

Once an FTA goes into effect, a strategy is required and dedicated resources are needed to ensure full implementation and compliance with the negotiated agreements and concessions, particularly in the areas of sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade.

More largely, Canada needs an agriculture trade strategy to grow our agriculture and food exports, to leverage our existing FTAs and to define a pathway to ensure that Canada remains a leading provider of food, fibre and fuel worldwide.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Roy, you have up to five minutes, please.

[René Roy, Chair, Canadian Pork Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the invitation and thank you to the committee members for your work on this issue.

My name is René Roy. I am the chair of the Canadian Pork Council and am also a pork farmer. Joining me today is our executive director, Stephen Heckbert.

The Canadian Pork Council is the voice for Canada's almost 8,000 pork farmers. Our industry is responsible for almost $5 billion in annual exports to more than 75 markets around the world. Indeed, pork exports represent almost 1% of Canada's total exports. We are free traders, and free trade is good for our industry and for our businesses.

So why are we here and why are we opposed to the UK's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, with the terms we have negotiated thus far? We are here today to talk about fairness, about a level playing field that is based on rules-based trade. Unfortunately, we're not sure all our global trading partners respect us very much when it comes to non-tariff trade barriers.

For example, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, has given us no access to the European market, even though European countries can export meat freely into Canada. The European Union will say their animal welfare provisions are better, or that their rules around certain processes improve food safety, but, in short, the European Union is better at non-tariff trade barriers.

When we grant access to our market and get no access in return, that is unfair to our producers, to their families and to our communities in rural Canada.

We can appreciate that international agreements are difficult to negotiate and that industries may not be winners under any individual deal, but when our animal welfare standards are called into question in the U.K. media, we expect our government to defend us, since these standards are Canada's standards.

Being a farmer is hard work. Being a farm family that can't ship its products to a market that can ship to ours makes it feel like free trade is a punishment.

Our dealings with the minister's office have been good. We have appreciated their communication, but here is the core of our point: Non-tariff trade barriers are not supposed to be intentional. If we do not defend ourselves, our trading partner will continue to disrespect us as a country.

What are we asking for? When the United States imposed an unfair tariff on our steel industry, we responded with a targeted set of retaliatory tariffs. It worked. Just reminding the countries that impose unfair rules on our export that we have some ideas of barriers we could use in response could help reduce these behaviours. As a country, we sometimes must be willing to raise the tone to be respected.

We would also like to have International Trade or Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada keep a list of countries that have trade agreements with us yet import surprisingly few of our agricultural products.

Canada's farmers are free traders, for the most part, but we need trade deals that are fair and equitable, otherwise we're being punished for wanting to feed the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, the world needs your help to access Canada's agricultural products. We, the pork producers of Canada, will work with you to support this noble cause.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Roy.

We move to Mr. Davison for up to five minutes, please.

[Chris Davison, Vice-President, Stakeholder and Industry Relations, Canola Council of Canada]

Chair Sgro and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.

The Canola Council of Canada encompasses all links in the canola value chain. Our members include canola growers, life science companies, exporters, processors and others. With over 90% of Canadian canola exported to as many as 50 different markets, the canola industry depends on ambitious, fair, science- and rules-based trade.

Historically, Canada has benefited from a business environment focused on globalization and multilateralism. Free trade agreements developed over past years have helped Canada become a leading agricultural exporter. However, some countries use protectionism as a way to promote security and access to critical goods and services. The effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic have certainly heightened protectionist policies as countries look to secure control of critical goods and also their food supplies.

By way of example, I'll refer to a report commissioned by the council, together with Cereals Canada and Pulse Canada, and referenced at this very committee in June 2022, during the committee's study of trade opportunities in the Indo-Pacific. The report documented broad use of non-tariff barriers in the agricultural sector in Indo-Pacific countries, which it said was, in part, reflective of more sustained efforts towards greater self-sufficiency and local value-add opportunities. However, this has been accompanied by protectionism and the use of NTBs to modulate imports, even as free trade agreements transform the landscape.

As international trade has increased, countries have become more concerned about protecting their domestic agriculture production. At the same time, consumers are concerned about practices and exporting countries that they perceive are affecting food safety. As a result, governments are adopting measures designed to address the food safety concerns and fears of constituents—some of which may not be grounded in science. Moving away from science-based measures generates greater trade unpredictability.

Such sanitary and phytosanitary measures are intended to protect human, animal and plant health. They include import requirements around insects, food-borne pathogens, plant diseases and weed seeds. Done properly, these measures are based on international standards or are scientifically justified. Such measures should also be the least trade-restrictive possible.

The number of SPS measures continues to expand as more countries, including many developing countries, adopt their own domestic regulatory systems. While in the past some countries may have recognized regulatory decisions from other jurisdictions, many now prefer to adopt their own measures. The result is a proliferation of SPS measures, as well as an increase in misaligned requirements, all leading to a riskier trade environment.

Access to innovation and technology—or lack thereof—represents another category of non-tariff barriers. While innovation and technology in areas such as biotechnology, gene editing and crop protection keep moving forward at a rapid pace, government regulations, globally, have become more fragmented and complex. The growing divergence of regulations will only increase disparity in technology access and market advantage for competitors and create greater risks for agricultural trade.

Current and recent examples that the Canadian canola industry has had to navigate in this regard include Mexico, which was recently the subject of technical consultations under the SPS chapter of CUSMA, and Pakistan, which took action last fall to halt the import of GM crops, reportedly as a result of domestic economic issues.

The risks created by misaligned regulatory processes are pernicious when it comes to a globally traded commodity like canola. There is significant misalignment, globally, for traditional biotechnology traits, and many countries have yet to clarify the regulatory status of varieties developed using gene editing or other new breeding techniques.

Finally, the environmentally sustainable practices used by Canadian canola farmers, which are world leading in many regards, also represent another potential risk. This is based on the fact that not all markets measure agricultural sustainability with the same metrics, and there is a risk that markets may be closed off if the practices of Canadian farmers are not recognized.

In conclusion, let me say that Canada has traditionally been a vocal advocate for science-based decision-making, as evidenced in trade agreement negotiations and in statements made at international bodies. Maintaining this posture is critical to the continued market success of Canadian canola. Similarly, the canola industry consistently advocates for Canadian regulations to be grounded in science rather than politics. Exporting science-based policy ideals is critical to advancing market access opportunities for Canadian canola and, indeed, for all of Canadian agriculture and agri-food.

Accordingly, as the committee continues its study of non-tariff barriers and as Canada continues to pursue trade agreements with several countries and markets at this time, we encourage actions that both promote and ensure science-based trade rules to provide a predictable trade environment without unnecessary restrictions; enable access to technology through science-based and predictable regulations and policies, both here in Canada and in export markets; and enable growth, increased value and trade diversification through the recognition of sustainability practices.

Thank you, again, for your time today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Davison.

We'll move on to Mr. Walker for up to five minutes.

[Mark Walker, Vice-President, Markets and Trade, Cereals Canada]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for having me here today.

My name is Mark Walker. I'm the vice-president of markets and trade with Cereals Canada.

Cereals Canada is the national industry association for wheat, durum, barley and oats in Canada. We represent the full value chain, from farmers to crop development companies, grain handlers and exporters. Our members are focused on the benefits of export-led growth, facilitated by access to diverse global markets.

Canadian cereals are a staple food exported to every corner of the world and over 80 countries. In an average year, our sector contributes $68.8 billion to the Canadian economy, including more than 370,000 Canadian jobs. With Canadian wheat’s global reach and long-standing place as a key agricultural export, we have witnessed the shift in trade barriers from tariff-based to non-tariff based barriers, or NTBs, as the primary means of controlling imports.

The most recent and impactful use of an NTB for wheat has been the use of sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions in Vietnam. Following the implementation of the CPTPP, Vietnam’s regulator added creeping thistle to its list of prohibited pests, thereby restricting Canadian wheat imports due to these seeds bring present in Canadian cargoes.

Since the restriction of trade in 2019, Canadian wheat shipments have been feasible only in container quantities. Instead of increased market access, Canadian exporters have experienced increased logistics costs and regulatory uncertainty, which saw Canadian wheat imports to Vietnam fall from 375,000 tonnes in 2019 to only 20,000 tonnes last year. We are currently working with the Government of Canada and Vietnamese stakeholders on a path forward to return to normalized trade and recognition of the safety and cleanliness of Canadian wheat exports.

The cereal sector is also closely watching developments in Mexico, where presidential decrees have been issued that will prevent farmers there from having access to key seed and farm input technologies. Additionally, products produced using these technologies will be barred from entry. If these measures were to extend to Canadian cereals, it would have significant impacts, both on Canadian industry and on Mexican consumers.

Industry and government can work together to support open, predictable and sustainable trade. Cereals Canada has seen the benefits of industry-to-industry advocacy with international customers. In the Peruvian market, Canadian cereals faced import restrictions that were similar to those I referenced in Vietnam. In 2019, Canadian industry, working with millers in Peru as well as the Government of Canada, established a protocol that allows Canadian wheat to be imported with in-country control measures that satisfy Peruvian regulators.

We applaud the government’s ambitious work to grow our free trade agreements, or FTAs, with cereal-importing countries. These agreements have worked to reduce cereal import tariffs in the relatively small number of markets where these tariffs still exist. Unfortunately, there have been instances in which, despite an FTA, market access has not increased. In these cases, the use of non-tariff barriers frustrate the potential gain from an FTA.

When negotiating future trade agreements and in implementing already agreed-to FTAs or renegotiating existing FTAs, Canadian trade officials should look to increase their focus on including language governing the use of non-tariff barriers, risk-based scientific assessments and binding dispute resolution processes to reopen borders when barriers are put in place—a framework for a fourth-generation trade agreement, if you will.

The government must continue to support harmonized standards and the use of science-based standards relating to maximum residue limits, or MRLs. The use of MRLs recognizes that modern testing protocols can identify minute amounts of contaminants, making zero-tolerance policies untenable. Science-based MRLs, harmonized at levels consistent with international guidance, such as the Codex Alimentarius, provide transparent levels that protect consumers and support predictable, open trade.

I would highlight that we applaud the announcement of the Indo-Pacific agriculture and agri-food office as part of the larger Indo-Pacific strategy. Government and industry partnerships are key to managing market access. Industry-to-industry advocacy is supported when government-to-government dialogue is happening at the same time.

Sustained in-region relationships between Canadian regulators and their counterparts in export markets will build trust and lines of communication that can pre-empt the use of NTBs and help resolve regulatory misalignments when they occur. It will support ongoing engagement in the region and provide opportunities where industry and government can work together to achieve positive outcomes for Canada.

Limiting the use of non-tariff trade barriers will foster a stronger, predictable trade environment that allows food to reach markets where it is needed. Implementing harmonized and science-based regulatory approaches will allow food producers to utilize modern agricultural tools to produce safe and affordable food, contributing to global food security.

On behalf of our members, Cereals Canada expresses its gratitude to the committee for its interest in learning more about the impacts of non-tariff trade barriers in agriculture. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Walker.

We go now to committee members, and Mr. Carrie for six minutes, please.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

I'd like to jump right in, Monsieur Roy, with you.

You mentioned in your opening statement that we're opening our market, but we're getting no access in return. In your sector, with non-tariff barriers, you mentioned they're not supposed to be intentional, and then suddenly we see these things hitting our industry. I wanted to talk to you a bit about the U.K. You mentioned, in a recent article you put out, the U.K.'s misleading position on trade issues. I think you mention in there the growth hormone, but there's also an issue, which I believe is ongoing, with carcass washing. From the science standpoint, it looks like our system is even superior to the U.K. one, yet we're not getting anywhere.

I just wanted to ask you this: How long has this been going on? How long has the government known about this? Has there been any progress with this particular non-tariff barrier?

[René Roy]

I will start with background information. Stephen can provide some of the statistics about how it has evolved over time, so it will help also to answer the questions.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

[Stephen Heckbert, Executive Director, Canadian Pork Council]

Just to begin, in 2019, our trade with the United Kingdom was even in terms of imports and exports, and then last year the United Kingdom exported some 1.2 million tonnes, and we exported 13,000. Our exports to the U.K. dropped precipitously. In terms of the percentage of Canadian exports versus imports, in 2019 we were tied basically, and in 2022 we were at 1%.

That drop is really driven by non-tariff trade barriers and several issues. There's a question around trichinosis testing, particularly for pigs that are grown entirely indoors. The Canadian point of view would be that we don't require trichinosis testing for those animals, and the U.K. would ask us to test every carcass. Similarly, in terms of carcass wash, we have a carcass wash we use, scientifically proven to be safe and effective in the Canadian market, and the U.K. bans the use of that wash.

Again, you've heard other witnesses testify to this. It's about scientific rigour. It's about a scientific basis for some of these decisions that other jurisdictions make. We're just, frankly, seeking a level playing field.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That makes a lot of sense. Basically, the government has known about it since 2019, and it's not getting any better. My concern now is we have the U.K. bilateral...and then the CPTPP, with the U.K. moving into that. Do you think we should be looking at proactively getting rid of these non-tariff barriers before we're opening up and moving into some of these newer trade agreements? Strategically, what's going on with the government right now, from your viewpoint?

[René Roy]

All industries have their specificities. It's important that everybody be aware of the specificities of our industry, so people can do negotiations on our behalf properly. We are in communication with the government currently, with the office of the minister, and it helps a lot to make sure that we bridge any information gaps that could be there. Above that, with true CPTPP, it will be important that we not go too quickly, because it will create some grounds for new tariffs or non-tariff trade barriers. It's important that we make sure we clarify this one before we go forward.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I agree 100%. It seems that when Canada goes into these trade agreements, we're like the boy scouts—we obey all the rules. What I'm seeing now, which really distresses me, is that Olymel announced the closure of the Vallée-Jonction plant, laying off 1,000 people. We're looking at the inaction to resolve these trade barriers as really having an effect at home, here. We found out through COVID-19 how important it is for us to have a supply chain. We can't necessarily always depend on our trading partners.

How much of an impact is this having on the ground here? At this plant, 1,000 people were laid off. They had $400 million in losses. This is starting to hit home. We need to make sure we're not going in the wrong direction.

Can you let us know if there are any other plants right now that are having problems, because of not completing the negotiations to get rid of these non-tariff barriers?

[René Roy]

It's not the first plant that is closing because of this market situation, so yes, it's really concerning, and it has an effect on the ground.

I just received a call before I arrived regarding producers in distress, because this will mean that producers have to close down, so it's not just a matter of numbers. It's a matter also of the people who are affected.

If I may add, also, that these—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Be quick, Mr. Roy.

[René Roy]

Then I will say quickly that it has a major impact, and it has an impact beyond Olymel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We move on now to Mr. Virani for six minutes, please.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being here.

I'm going to start with Mr. Walker and then invite Mr. Davison to jump in.

Mr. Walker, you mentioned the Indo-Pacific strategy, and you specifically mentioned the office, the Indo-Pacific agriculture and agri-food office. This is an office that's meant to be in situ, on location, in Asia, dealing with things such as SPS irritants as they arise, trying to head them off before they become proper issues and cargoes are being prevented from being delivered, etc.

Can you comment a bit about how you see that office operating and how it will be useful in terms of addressing these irritants, which are arising more and more often?

I'll go to Mr. Walker first and then maybe Mr. Davison.

[Mark Walker]

As my colleague Mr. Davison mentioned, Cereals Canada, along with Pulse Canada and the Canola Council, commissioned a report that we spoke to last year at this committee regarding the IPDO.

What we know is that sustained in-region presence is very critically important, government-to-government engagement with officials who can fan out across the region as needed to help proactively address these SPS issues as they arise. In that area of the world, we know that business often comes second and relationships come first, which is a bit of a flip to what we have here in North America.

I'm very supportive of the office. I'm very pleased with the announcement. Really, what we need is a sustained in-region presence.

Thank you.