Agriculture Committee on May 28th, 2014

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It peaked and it's tailed off now as we start to shine a light on what's happening and who's doing it. So a lot of that has tailed off.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But there's still a concern that it's displacing potentially a lot of Canadian production.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Well, actually it hasn't displaced Canadian production yet. There's always the potential for that to happen if this kept on in the same line, but the line has gone like this—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

My question is whether you have a timetable.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It will happen as soon as possible. Those assessments are going on. You have to identify who's doing it, where it's coming through, and so on, so that you can charge CBSA—that's our front line on that—to make sure they're looking for it. This product is coming in. It's not hard to tell a full-grown chicken from what should be coming in. We're just putting the finishing touches on a number of programs so that we can address this.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I really wanted to ask about local chicken production on Vancouver Island, but I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I appreciate that, Mr. Garrison.

We'll now go to Mr. Hoback for three minutes, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister Ritz, for being here this afternoon. It's unfortunate that time's cut short.

I was kind of curious about the country-of-origin labelling. I know you've just been to some meetings. Could you give us an update as to where that is and whether you got some results when you were in Mexico?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Already, of course, we're in the “hurry up and wait” mode. There are a couple of different court actions, one at the WTO. Mexico and Canada have a number of times taken the U.S. to the WTO, on several fronts now. We're in the process of analyzing the amendment they put forward. Actually their own economist at the USDA has said that the country-of-origin labelling does not show any quantifiable benefit to anybody, so that's good news for us. We make sure that the tribunal in Geneva is getting those little gems.

At the end of the day, I had good discussions with Secretary Tom Vilsack. I know my counterpart, Enrique Martinez, had the same discussions as to how hurtful it is. We have put out our list of retaliatory measures. The Mexicans don't have a gazetting process that allows them to do that. The last major dispute they had was in 2008. They had a very comprehensive list they retaliated on, and that did turn the tide at the end of the day. They've been a little more forthcoming in saying that the list they would put out would be something similar to that, so that's good news for us.

Getting that list out did help us. People started to sign on to the other court case in which American industry—from the ranchers right through to the retail sector—as well as Mexican and Canadian industry took the administration in the United States to court. One judge ruled that it was not on. They appealed it, and they had over 100 senators and congressmen, who had never taken part in that before, sign onto that appeal. Part of that help was our retaliatory list. There was a congressman from California who was quite concerned about California wine. Another congressman from Kentucky, who sits on the appropriations committee for the farm bill, was very concerned about Kentucky bourbon being attached. So it got their attention and showed them how serious we are. We have every intention of retaliating should and when it be required. We're hopeful that the Americans will finally read the tea leaves and stop riding country-of-origin labelling and move back to free and unfettered trade.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I think I'll leave it there, Chair. Anything else will take another five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

You have another minute.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Well, then, I think it's very important, maybe, with all the transportation issues.... A lot of naysayers have been saying that this is a result of the Canadian Wheat Board, yet if you look at the wheat prices last year, they're up by, what, 26%? Crop receipts are up to some $30 billion for last year. It was a record year. How would you respond to that?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Well, every year depends on the market, on how much grain is out there and if you can get it to market and so on. I unequivocally disagree with anybody who says the Wheat Board would have fixed this.

The only rationale I could put to that is that the way they used to dribble out their sales at 12%, or a twelfth a month, certainly didn't put a strain on our system. That might have been the only saving factor. That just means there would have been more grain in your bins and in my bins. When I started farming in the early seventies, we had piles of grain on the ground, and most of it rotted right there. We never did move it because they never did get it going, and it was not the volume that we're looking at today.

The other thing that everybody completely misses is that this is the second year of marketing freedom, not the first. The first year was a complete success. This one was great right off the combine, with 30% more off the combine—that's cashflow—than we ever saw before.

The other point that completely gets missed all the time is that the vast majority of products to be shipped are not Wheat Board commodities. They're canola, and pulses, and non-Wheat Board commodities. Everybody goes on about.... You know, wheat is no longer the king. It's canola. As for some misguided folks who say the Wheat Board would have fixed this, it might have affected 30% of their grain, and as I said, they only marketed a twelfth a month. It's ridiculous to say the Wheat Board would have made a difference—not at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoback.

We've had a notice that the bells are supposed to ring at five o'clock. We do have some business in terms of the estimates to go through.

Before that, Minister, I want to thank you for taking the time and for your eagerness, as always, to come before committee and be thorough and direct. I think that's the important part. You're always direct with your answers and your knowledge about your ministry. Thanks to you and to your departmental people. I have a sense that the bells will be going off in a few minutes, so thank you very much for coming out.

Committee, in terms of the estimates, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), for the main estimates for 2014-15, we have votes 1, 5, and 10 under Agriculture and Agri-Food, vote 1 under the Canadian Dairy Commission, and vote 1 under the Canadian Grain Commission.

AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$544,949,432

Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$27,872,294

Vote 10—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions..........$365,352,000

Shall votes 1, 5, and 10 under Agriculture and Agri-Food, less the amounts voted in the interim supply, carry?

(Votes 1, 5, and 10 agreed to)

CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$3,610,936

Shall vote 1, under the Canadian Dairy Commission, less the amounts voted in the interim supply, carry?

(Vote 1 agreed to)

CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$7,537,076

Shall vote 1, under the Canadian Grain Commission, less the amounts voted in the interim supply, carry?

(Vote 1 agreed to)

Shall the chair report votes 1, 5, and 10 under Agriculture and Agri-Food, vote 1 under the Canadian Dairy Commission, and vote 1 under the Canadian Grain Commission, less the amounts voted in the interim supply, to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Please? Thank you very much.

With that, I thought the bells would likely be going now, but we know they're going to. I apologize to the department heads—there go the bells—but thank you so very much for coming out.

The meeting is adjourned.