International Trade Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

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

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 95 of the Standing Committee on International Trade. Please note that this meeting has been extended until 6:00 p.m.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders; 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 members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those online, please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation online, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor audio, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I ask all participants to be careful when handling the earpieces in order to prevent feedback, which can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. Please speak only into the microphone that your headset is plugged into.

I will remind you that 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.

If any technical issues arise, please inform me immediately so we can suspend.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 6, 2024, the committee is continuing its study of free trade negotiations between Canada and Ecuador.

For our first panel, we have with us today, as an individual, Thomas Chiasson-LeBel, assistant professor, Université de l'Ontario français. Back to visit with us are the Canadian Pork Council, Stephen Heckbert, executive director, and René Roy, chair. We have the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, with Ron Lemaire, president; and from Pulse Canada we have Jeff English, vice-president, marketing and communications.

Welcome to all of you gentlemen.

We will start with opening remarks of up to five minutes, please. Then we'll go with a round of questions.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Chair, if I could—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

—before we begin the comments from our guests here, I just want to speak to my colleagues with regard to the five motions that I presented and had the clerk distribute on Friday evening, and if possible, before the presentations take place, because I could be here for a while, Madam Chair. I have a lot to talk about. I want to give our witnesses the chance to fully present their findings, and if this hearing today doesn't preclude or doesn't go forward in its entirety, I feel we've wasted it.

I'd like to have these motions deliberated upon first in full before we go to comments, and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Because there are five motions that you wish to speak to—

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

—I'm going to be doing it either right now or in the first round of questioning. I would prefer, if I could, with your indulgence and that of my fellow committee members, to do it before we begin our final day of testimony in hearings regarding Canada's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Just so we get this clear, Mr. Baldinelli, we have four witnesses here now. We have the ambassador at five o'clock. If your intent is to prevent the meeting from going forward and hearing these witnesses, this was a study that we agreed to do—

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No, my intent is.... I want to ensure that we deliberate and debate these motions. I don't want to preclude the fact that I may be cutting off these witnesses. I would prefer, if we go through this entire day just debating my motions, that we have these witnesses return, and then they can make their comments in full. I would hate for us to just hear from them and then begin the rounds of discussions on my motions. I would like to begin with that, to have that undertaken, and then we can begin in full.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It seems like it's disrespectful to the witnesses. Your motions have been tabled. Could we not possibly deal with those motions on Thursday and not have witnesses on Thursday, so that we could deal with your issues on Thursday and go forward with the witnesses that we have now?

It just seems unfair to the system that we have witnesses here ready to go, and you don't have one motion; you have five motions.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, and my hope is to consider all five, if needed, today. My hope is that after reviewing my first motion, I will get consensus among the colleagues here in adoption of that motion. If that's the case, then we can go straight to the comments from our witnesses. That's my hope, if I could....

If I can just begin, I'd like to discuss the first motion. If I can get some co-operation and agreement among the parties, then we can begin our hearing. I'm not going to be taking this to Thursday. I'm going to be undertaking this now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If it's going to take the entire afternoon, then I think it's unfair to the witnesses to have them here, and we should dismiss them.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It may not.

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

We don't know.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We don't know.

I'd like, first, to go forward with my motion and see what my committee colleagues suggest. Then we'll go to the vote on that motion. If not, then I'm going to be moving the second motion. I hope that with cooler heads and common sense, we'll be able to adopt the first motion that I put forward.

Again, Madam Chair, I have the floor, and I'm not going to cede this opportunity.

Before we begin our final day of testimony in hearings regarding Canada's intention to enter into negotiations—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Which motion are you at? There are five here. Make sure we are all on the same page.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm going to be talking about the motion that speaks to amending our supply chain study. I believe it's number five.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

They're not numbered, unfortunately.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'll read that into the record, then, Madam Chair, with our change. I'll do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead and read it, and then I will go back to the committee to get what direction the committee wants to go with this.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, before we begin the final day of testimony in hearings regarding Canada's intention to enter into negotiations aimed at achieving a free trade agreement with Ecuador, I would like to bring forward my motions, which were sent to the committee on Friday, for our consideration.

Madam Chair, I will lead with the following motion, one that seeks to build on the current supply chain study, which we will return to following our examination of a possible free trade agreement between Canada and Ecuador, as well as the CARM study that we will be doing. In essence, this motion adds a part (c) to the current motion for our supply chain study, while keeping the remaining wording intact.

As such, the motion will read as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a comprehensive study to (a) identify programs, tools and measures that support the growth of Canadian businesses and their contributions to domestic and global supply chains, export abroad, and becoming integral players in various economic sectors; (b) diversify and increase the presence of Canadian businesses in global markets, focusing on areas of competitive advantage and regional diversity of goods and services; and (c)—

This is the part I'm adding, Madam Chair.

—consider the ramifications of the ArriveCAN application and its impact on Canadian businesses, travel and tourism, as well as Canada's reputation as a travel destination for international visitors; that the committee hold a minimum of six meetings on this study—

This was in the previous motion, but again, it's a minimum of six meetings, and that could be added to.

—divided by regions in Canada; and that the committee report its comprehensive findings and recommendations to the House.

Chair, I propose this motion given the recent development that has dominated the attention of this House with regard to the ArriveCAN application and its negative impacts on Canadians. These impacts, concerns and, in many instances, grievances have been long-standing and varied, incorporating supply chain difficulties faced by not only the business sector but also, for example, in my community, the tourism industry, which is considered an export business.

Colleagues, I first raised concerns with the implementation of the ArriveCAN application on December 7, 2021, in a question I posed to the then public safety minister in the House. I can read that into the record, and I will. However, for now, I'd like to see, if my colleagues have had a chance to examine the wording that I'm proposing, whether they had any comments on that and whether they would support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I have Mr. Seeback, and then I have Mr. Cannings.

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

I just want to say that I think that Mr. Baldinelli's motion actually dovetails nicely on the study, because we are also going to be looking at CARM shortly.

ArriveCAN was a program that was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing $60 million. We all know that there were incredible deficiencies in that program.

If you were to analogize that, actually, to something that more people can relate to, for example, if you were to look at hiring someone for $8,000 to repair your roof and then they came and gave you the bill at the end of the day and said, here's your bill, actually, for $6 million, no one would put up with that. Add on top of it that the roof leaks and you find out that 75% of the people who allegedly are part of the invoice actually did no work on the roof, and you probably wouldn't pay the invoice.

I think it's pertinent for us to look at this, especially in light of CARM, which we know is coming. CARM, we understand, might have cost $400 million at this point. Maybe that was something that was supposed to cost $40,000 and is now at $400 million.

I think it's relevant to get to the bottom of what happened with the ArriveCAN app so that we don't have this happen with CARM. It would be incredibly detrimental to Canadian trade if it were to operate in any way, shape or form like the efficiency of the ArriveCAN app.

I think this is a reasonable motion that the committee can support today, and then we can get on to the important business that we have with respect to this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Cannings is next, please.

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

I would say that this is the one motion in the package I can see that actually has anything to do with international trade, but unfortunately we just did a study on the effects of ArriveCAN on international trade. We kept that to that topic, so I don't see any reason to go over that again.

I would agree with the Conservatives that this is a very serious-sounding scandal, but it's already being studied in public accounts and government operations. I know because I've sat in on the OGGO committee's deliberations on this. I don't think there is any reason at all for the international trade committee to basically waste time when work is being diligently done in other committees to get to the bottom of this.

I think we should just go to a vote and then move on and finish this study, because we've already studied ArriveCAN and its effects on trade, and it's not our business to study the gory details behind this scandal. That's being done in public accounts and government operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Sidhu.