International Trade committee  I think that we want to be focusing on both, because, if we look at CPTPP, that agreement is there. If we can get folks or economies in the door, let's get that rolling. At the same time, it might not be appropriate for some of the economies within that region, so let's make sure that we have systems in process to move those forward, too.

International Trade committee  I would just note that the silence of the group really emphasizes that we are very good trade partners with that portion of the world. We are a stable, large, sustainable producer of food, and they have large populations, so we're, as you can see, excited about the opportunity that lies ahead of us.

International Trade committee  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.

International Trade committee  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.

International Trade committee  Yes, it's an excellent point now, because in fact we're not actually exporting anything to the U.K. anymore. It has become so difficult to trade into that market. Certainly, as we're looking at new trade agreements, we're using the example of the CPTPP as something that we would want to build off and CETA as something that we would not want to build off.

International Trade committee  I would note that, globally, we work collaboratively on a number of different issues. There's the livestock research centre in Kenya, for example. Certainly, we all have an interest in making sure we're addressing these issues, which seem to come up more and more. I would also say that, in the face of climate change, we certainly recognize that food security is going to be at the top of everybody's mind.

International Trade committee  Certainly, our idea would be to increase technical access and really work, as Janelle said earlier, to have great services at our consulates that already there. How can we build on that? I don't think we have a completely clear idea of “This is where it must be and this is who must be in the office.”

International Trade committee  I would echo Casey's comment that labour is very serious for our industry. We do talk about it a lot in limiting our ability for growth. Beyond that, of course, are the barriers, but we have to get the door open first of all. If we look at Thailand with a 50% tariff on beef, that's a barrier there.

International Trade committee  I can start and then go over to canola. We think there has been a hollowing out of the amount of technical expertise within the region. We want to have an office that would be able to build on the capacity within our consulates. We think that having that technical trade expertise that is able to work with existing offices as well as with industry will help us to more proactively address the issues that are coming fast and furious at us.

International Trade committee  Good afternoon. My name is Fawn Jackson, and I'm the director of policy and international affairs for the CCA. With me is Jack Chaffe, who is the foreign trade committee co-chair and president of the Beef Farmers of Ontario. We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide input on opportunities for the Canadian beef sector in the Indo-Pacific region.

Agriculture committee  Yes, I really think that we can keep it at a higher level because I think that's where we're going to be able to really drive the amount of change we need, and then, as we get into the finer details—perhaps you want to supply a habitat for a specific species or perhaps you want to increase wetland retention in one specific area—I think that's when you can get down to those smaller details.

Agriculture committee  Yes, and I think we really need all the different stakeholders at the table, because how different policies interact actually drives those land use changes. When we have a federal policy on biofuels, for example, what is the implication of that? If we have sectors that don't have equal access to BRM or production-neutral BRM, then what are the implications there?

Agriculture committee  What I would say is that, while we can work on the really fine details, I think we really need to work at the big puzzle pieces. For us, we're losing grasslands at a rate that is having huge implications. Our thought is to come up with a land-use plan to figure out how to turn that trend around.

Agriculture committee  Sure. First of all, Canada has 50% of the greenhouse gas footprint of the global world average. The reason we have that is that we've invested in research for a long time. In the research around 3-NOP, which is one these feed additives you're alluding to, one of the biggest studies was done in Canada.

Agriculture committee  If I could just add in, Duane, I think we're working on the finer details of the quantification. We do know there is about 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon within the grasslands that are managed by beef producers, but when we go to add even more carbon through best management practices, there's further research to be done there to get it to a little bit finer detail.