Agriculture Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I'll call this meeting to order.

We have a bit of a problem this morning. The folks from the Ontario Apple Growers were caught in Hamilton. They were fogged in and may be a little late.

We do have a motion on the floor and we can work with that first. We're also circulating a card for Jean-François, our regular clerk, as his father passed away on the weekend. He's away attending to family business and a funeral. That's going to take precedence.

We'll stall for a bit of time by doing Mr. Bezan's motion and any other business before the committee, and as soon as the apple folks get here, we'll put them on. I thought we could perhaps switch hours with the tobacco folks, but they're not here yet either. Unfortunately, we're finding ourselves with a bit of dead air.

Let's start with the motion. Mr. Bezan, do you want to carry us forward on that?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Certainly.

As a cattle producer and as somebody on whom the BSE crisis has had quite a heavy impact, and in consultation with some of my colleagues, I decided to come forward with a motion on the whole issue of TRQ.

As probably most of you realize, on Friday, the USDA put the rule in to the Office of Management and Budget in the United States. So the OMB is now looking at the rule and going through the process of bringing forward the opening of the border to cattle over 30 months of age.

The one concern I have, along with many people in the industry, is that traditionally we've always had a tariff rate quota with non-NAFTA countries. That has been followed very stringently since 2003, since the BSE crisis. What we're asking is that the TRQ be adhered to and that companies in Canada that make use of processing beef for their deli markets, or whatever, can access the majority of those products through the TRQs from offshore sources or from other NAFTA partners such as Mexico and the United States. So we're saying we respect that the TRQ remain the current practice in place, and we ask that if there is a need to increase it, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who oversees the TRQs, essentially has to report back to the House with a reason why they need to have an increase in the TRQ.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

So you're moving that motion?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

I'm moving that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

So moved by Mr. Bezan.

We don't actually need a seconder, but thanks, Ken.

Mr. Steckle.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

On the quantity, James, we're in kilograms here, and normally we deal in tonnes. I have no problem if that's the equivalence in numbers, and I anticipate likely it is.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

It's around 76,000 tonnes, which is the regular TRQ.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay, that's the one you're talking about.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm trying to do quick calculations off the page--76,409 tonnes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

It didn't have to be accurate, but it was quick.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Is this limit, James, the same as the TRQ now, which has been negotiated?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

The existing TRQ represents roughly 5% of domestic consumption.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

What seems to be known out there in the industry is the tonnes, more so than the kilograms. My concern is that when this information gets out there, 76,409 tonnes versus 1.5 million kilograms, they'll think that we as a committee are asking for an increase. Think about it. I'd prefer to have it in tonnes so that it's the same language as the farm community is using. You know how things get confused.

Secondly, it doesn't really matter because it's in the “whereas”, but it says, “the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall continue, after the normalization of trade with the United States in cattle over 30 months of age”. Why do you add that “after the normalization of trade with the United States in cattle”? Why not do it now?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Because it's being adhered to now.

This is the policy as it sits today, that we're respecting the TRQ. No extra imports are allowed in, and they aren't giving out supplementals. That's the purpose of that. We don't want any more supplementals unless there's a real need demonstrated.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would move a friendly amendment that we change the kilograms to tonnes, 76,000, or whatever that is--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

It's 74,600, isn't it?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

It's 76,000.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

All right, we have a friendly amendment on the floor.

Mr. Bezan, you're open to that? Okay.

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Actually, we have both figures in tonnes and in kilograms. It might be good to include both.

Paul asked that we replace kilograms by tonnes. So we could include both figures and put one in brackets.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

We could, sure. Yes, I understand that. That's why it's tonnes, not tons.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Yes, we would have to have both, because Quebec has adopted the metric system.

[A voice]

One metric tonne.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

It is metric tonnes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

All right. We have a friendly amendment from Mr. Steckle to get it to the 76,000 tonnes that people understand. Mr. Bellavance would like to add “1.5 million kilograms” in parentheses after that.

Is everybody okay with that? Is there any more discussion on that particular point?

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

The only thing is the 1.5 million kilograms...is that exactly the tonnes? Somebody might dispute that. Or does it matter? I have no problem with what they want here.