Evidence of meeting #71 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Chair, David said this other motion has gone a little bit too far. If we go back to my motion as I amended it to start off this meeting, is he and the government side ready to vote now and get on to the other business?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
The amendment is before the meeting right now, so we'll deal with that. I'm only your chair. This meeting will decide the future of this motion.
Mr. Gourde.
June 5th, 2007 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary because Mr. Easter admitted that he was working very hard, 28 hours a day. I'm incapable of that. After 22 hours of work, I have to sleep at least two hours.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Easter troubled me when he talked about the contracts that may not be met at the Canadian Wheat Board. I find that crazy because we know that, in a real market, those who have resale contracts usually have in their possession the quantities of grain necessary to cover their sales. That's fundamental and of the basis of markets.
In the mechanics of purchase and sale, when you sell grain, you have it in your possession or you have something to guarantee its delivery. I'm convinced that the Canadian Wheat Board has all the grain that has been sold currently in stock. We can't think that future contracts won't be met even before the grain has reached the Canadian Wheat Board. If Mr. Easter has additional information to provide us, we would be pleased to hear it. Otherwise, he can surely withdraw that part from his speech.
Mr. Anderson told us about the concerns of western farmers. When I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, I had a chance to understand the problems of western Canada. I even asked Mr. Anderson for advice so I could understand what was going on at the farms. As a producer myself, I was very much interested in knowing and understanding the problems of grain marketing.
In addition, we learned that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had done a lot of research into varieties adapted to Canada's regions. During 20 years of research, those varieties yielded grain of superior quality. In certain regions, regardless of thermal units, you could have superior quality barley for making malt, naked oat or oats for making cookies of a certain quality level and a lot of organic products.
Those farmers did not have the opportunity to add value to their grain. In my opinion, that's nonsensical because there are grains worth $50, $60 to $100 more per tonne. These aren't grains that can't be found in phenomenal quantities. There are markets of 25,000 or 30,000 tonnes, and sometimes even only 10,000 or 15,000 tonnes. These grains are produced in Canada by specialized farmers using varieties developed by those producers, Agriculture Canada and private partners. However, the grains had been mixed in other silos and turned up in slow-growth markets. In my view, that's nonsensical and virtually scandalous. We're talking about Canada's reputation for high-quality grains, but when we can't market superior quality grains, that is 10% superior and often used for human food, that's nonsensical.
Let's compare the situation with that of Quebec. The Fédération des producteurs de grains du Québec markets grain individually, not collectively. Quebec producers always have the choice, year after year. For example, they have chosen to market grain for human consumption collectively, but to market wheat, corn, barley and oats used for animal feed individually, on their farms.
There are specialized oat producers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean who sell naked oats. They have a high-quality oat, but it is regional. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, they produce special quality oats as a result of the particular climate there. Over the years, they have developed, together with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other private partners, varieties that have enabled the Olofée Farm to process oats into oatmeal on site, which western producers cannot do. Today, they can export oatmeal to make cookies around the world.
This marketing and regional development tool is a very good example for western Canadian producers, who don't have it. Quebec producers can process their grain and give it a second and third value-added and export those products around the world. This is a very great source of pride for them, their families and their region.
That is why I am happy to be taking part in this debate today and to give David my support for what he told us about.
As producers, we do not often have a chance to develop our products. Often it's the story of the life of a producer who transmits a very high quality product to the next generation. These are specialized ways of doing things in the region and methods that have been developed by families or a group of families that have wanted to share their knowledge with neighbours or other farmers with whom they agree on how to proceed to develop a product used in processing and further processing. These regional successes are often the envy of the rest of world as well. Europe has developed an enormous number of regional products in this way.
So it is one of our government's priorities to develop certain regional products where it is possible to do so. The value-added generated in our regions will assist in helping farmers live off their products.
Marketing methods differ from province to province. Western Canada has chosen to market collectively, but today we must adapt to the reality of the global market, that is to say quickly, and we must develop mechanisms in order to have the opportunity to respond very quickly to those markets.
Thank you. I hope my remarks have informed the members of our committee.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
There has been some discussion, and if we can move to the original motion as amended, I will be willing to withdraw the amendment that's in debate now that would cause an investigation into the Prime Minister's office, the minister's office, and the parliamentary secretary. That way we can hopefully move to vote on the motion.
(Amendment withdrawn)
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
Now we'll go back to the original motion. Mr. Miller now has the right to continue with the motion as we originally amended it earlier today.
Mr. Miller.
5:05 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
It reads:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food write a letter to the Honourable Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, indicating the Agriculture Committee's support for a thorough investigation into the government's conduct and spending by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food throughout the recent Canadian Wheat Board barley marketing plebiscite.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
Those are the changes that were asked for by Mr. Atamanenko, the original mover of the motion.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I'm going to reserve my time. You can call the motion. If it's successful, I'm sure there will be a minority report prepared and filed.
(Motion agreed to )
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We will be filing a minority report, as Mr. Miller pointed out. We'll take care of it.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it was agreed at the last meeting that the minority report to the report we passed last Wednesday would be in to the clerk in a translated condition today. Can we expect that report to be tabled forthwith in the House of Commons? That's the report on the options program.
5:05 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
I have received the dissenting opinion on that report. It will be tabled as soon as we're able to contact the chairman and append the—
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
—it could be tabled tomorrow, if that's the desire of the committee.
