Agriculture Committee on May 12th, 2009

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I would like help with that, quite honestly.

If there are some recommendations that would come forward.... I agree with you completely. The agriculture industry is handcuffed by the regulations we have, whether they're through Health Canada or Agriculture Canada, in terms of commodities coming into this country that make us uncompetitive because we have products on them or because of our not having access.

[Larry Martin]

To the same inputs.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

That beats any farm program, in my mind.

You talk about the young farmers and what they're saying. That's about fair trade, that's about fair competition, and having that.

[Larry Martin]

Right.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I think I would look for support and some background from you, sir, if possible, to move ahead on some of those things that I think are really critical to our agricultural industry.

[Larry Martin]

I know that time is limited, so I want to say just two quick things. One is that I've heard lots of farm organizations say “If you would give us fair trade on the regulatory side, we wouldn't ever ask for a subsidy again”. I hear that a fair amount in the vegetable and horticulture industry in Ontario.

Secondly—I will get this to you—I suggest that you read the piece that we just released with FCPC. We have a number of recommendations in there, and the most interesting one is looking at what Australia has done. They're the best in the world in the regulatory environment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

We're going to move on to the Bloc again, with Madame Bonsant.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Mr. Martin, I find it somewhat incongruous when you speak of competitiveness and productivity. I am not a farmer but I have visited farms. How can we compete with countries such as the United States, Peru or Brazil, which have the right temperature, cheap labour, if not slave labour. You know that, in Brazil, people work for next to nothing. In the southern United States, illegal Mexicans work for peanuts. In those countries, greenhouse gas emissions and food safety are not important. Baby carrots contaminated with salmonella have often been shipped from California to Canada. How can we speak of productivity when we do not have a level playing field around the world?

[Larry Martin]

I don't understand why that's inconsistent. If we have lower productivity in Canada than the U.S. does, and they have cheaper labour, those are two reasons why they have an advantage over us, not one. They may have cheaper labour. That depends on the industry, whether they have cheaper labour or not. But if they also have higher productivity and we don't try to match their productivity, we have two strikes, not one, against us.

Secondly, with the number of things that should have happened in trade agreements, for example, we should be able to level the playing field to some extent, on things like the regulatory environment, that would keep out products that have different inputs on them that are not allowed here or are not healthy.

So I'm sorry, but I think my argument is totally consistent, especially given the fact that we have a huge land resource in Canada that is, I think, the second largest in the world for human beings. We can't eat everything in Canada that we produce here, so we have to be able to compete in the world.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I agree with you but it is hard to grow carrots when the soil is frozen.

Let us move on to the carbon exchange. For a long time now, the Bloc Québécois has been asking for a carbon exchange to be established. Many farmers practice organic farming. In my riding, there are some 18- and 19-year-old girls who own a farm. They are doing everything they can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In all honesty, do you believe—this is not a political question—that we must establish a carbon exchange as quickly as possible in order to provide financial assistance to these farmers? This could also help them survive a good number of crises.

[Larry Martin]

Actually, I don't think I know enough about that to be able to answer it.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

All right. The carbon exchange is based on the polluter-pay principle, which means that those who pollute purchase greenhouse gas credits. As I was saying, there are many people in my riding—60% are farmers—who are trying things. I do not know if you are aware of it, but one of my constituents owns a wind turbine. He is an avid recycler. I think he spent $200 on electricity in 2007, and he owns a farm. Do you think that this carbon exchange could help our young farmers work through a number of situations?

[Larry Martin]

Certainly you could, if we can find ways that farmers can generate energy. I'm very much involved in a similar kind of a thing in Guelph, as a matter of fact. If we could let farmers generate energy and get paid for it, that's a great idea. Part of the problem has been, again, that the regulatory system hasn't allowed people to sell into the grids in many cases, so they didn't have that opportunity. That's changing. But absolutely, in that regard I can say I certainly agree with you.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I would be very pleased if Mr. Klein and the others would like to answer my question about the carbon exchange.

[Dr. Kurt Klein]

Actually there has been quite a bit of research done across Canada on things like a carbon market. A carbon market can work in many ways. We talk about it conceptually, but certainly there is a lot of interest nowadays in not just the carbon market, but the payment for environmental goods and services that are produced on the farm.

I believe this is the way they're going in Europe, and I think we're seeing more and more ideas going in that direction in the United States. And I'm hopeful that some of these will come in our direction.

Having said that, I don't think that will solve the long-term nature of low farm incomes. The nature of competition in agriculture will always drive profits down. But I think it would be a better way of getting money to the farmers you want to get it to, rather than interfering with the market processes through regulations and so on.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much, Mr. Klein.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Time is up?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Time is up.

That wraps up the questioning.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming today. You've opened our eyes quite a bit.

Right now we're going to have a minute to let the witnesses leave the room, and we're going to come right back in a minute's time to deal with Mr. Hoback's motion.

We're going to go to Mr. Hoback's motion. Hopefully it won't take too long.

Randy, to start off, you can talk about your motion or even move it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Just quickly, I think it's pretty self-explanatory. It's just asking that the Competition Bureau be given some scope to check in on what's going on in the pricing and marketing of fertilizer and then to report back to the committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Are there any more comments on Mr. Hoback's motion?

Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I think Randy should have read it in French.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Do you have any comments, Mr. Easter, on his motion?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

One of the key areas that need to be pointed out--and I don't know whether it can be pointed out in an attachment to this, Randy--is what is happening in some of our own Canadian industries, for example the potash industry in Saskatchewan. If you recall, they were before this committee a little over a year ago, and prices were going through the roof. We were complaining to them about that. They were telling us that there was no way, with the demand from India and China, they would be in a position to come up with the amount of production necessary until 2012.

They were getting $1,400 a tonne, or thereabouts, for potash. When the bubble burst on commodity prices, and it came down to a level where they were certainly still making a damned good profit, the first thing we heard--and it was in the papers the other day again--was that they're laying off people, cutting back their production, and so on and so forth, when they were actually still making money, and when they could have been stockpiling potash for future years, for that matter.

All I'm saying, in terms of this motion, is that if there is one thing the Competition Bureau needs to be looking at, because it's within Canadian jurisdiction, it is the way the potash companies in Saskatchewan have handled this. As well, there are only three potash suppliers, as I understand it, around the world. It certainly looks as though there's almost collusion at that level in terms of pricing and ensuring that the prices they receive are high, regardless of the demand. If you want to see a supply management system, I think this is one that is managing supply to meet effective market demand and substantial profit.

I'd just make note of that, Chair, because I think it needs to be noted somehow in the committee's letter to the Competition Bureau in terms of what we're investigating.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

If there are no more comments, let's bring it to a vote.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The clerk has said she'll get that letter off right away. We'll hear back from them on timelines or whatever and present that to the committee.

There's one more thing. There's a subcommittee meeting on the Tuesday that we come back, after the committee meeting, so it will be from one o'clock to two o'clock.

[An hon. member]

Is it the steering committee?