Would it be in operation within five years?
Evidence of meeting #51 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 saskatchewan.
Evidence of meeting #51 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 saskatchewan.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Would it be in operation within five years?
11:25 a.m.
General Manager, Saskatchewan Pork Development Board
Oh, yes. We anticipate that it will be 18 months to two years, once we get rolling.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
What happens to the three years left in the exclusive contract?
11:25 a.m.
General Manager, Saskatchewan Pork Development Board
That is a very good question, and that is one that's top of mind with everybody who has had to sign one of these contracts.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
So there's no way there's any flexibility on Maple Leaf's part to bring it down, given the fact that they're shutting down and that there's another plant.
11:25 a.m.
General Manager, Saskatchewan Pork Development Board
No. And coincidentally, the five-year contracts were only for people who had delivered to Saskatoon. If you previously delivered to Brandon from anywhere else in Saskatchewan, there are still one-year contracts available.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
That's interesting.
My next topic--maybe, Mr. Bacon, you could talk about this also--is the WTO. Both of you mentioned that we need more liberalization. We need more opportunities to somehow combat what's happening in Europe and the United States as far as subsidies. I believe in the pork industry we would like to get our quota up to 5% in Europe. It's only 0.5% right now.
We want our government to move ahead on this. At the same time, our government has made a commitment to fix supply management and we're saying it's not on the table.
What are your thoughts? Do we have to sacrifice one area to move into another area? Could I have some comments on that, from either of you?
11:30 a.m.
President, Canadian Canola Growers Association
That's a good question, and it's a tough one to answer. I know if I was in supply management I definitely wouldn't want to give away supply management, because they do take the dollars out of the marketplace, but I'm not sure how we address it. I just know that in the canola industry we have tremendous tariffs out there and subsidies coming out of the States and Europe, and if there were some way that could be addressed, it would sure help agriculture and relieve some of the subsidies that the Canadian government is paying to us.
So I don't know. I just can't answer that because I just don't know. It's a tough question. I know some great people on the supply management, and I don't want to see their industry sacrificed on behalf of ours. I know some of our board members would say so, but I wouldn't.
11:30 a.m.
General Manager, Saskatchewan Pork Development Board
Yes, I'd like to respond to that.
For those not in supply management, trade is absolutely essential. We've actually been forced, because of the way our policy has developed in Canada, as a national organization to attend the Geneva meetings and stuff like that. We find it's really unfortunate that we can't settle this in Canada before we go to the world stage. We have so many people over there lobbying for the last minute that we're not sure if that's the way to do it.
Secondly, one of the points that I think most people should realize is that supply management is very important to their industry. We understand that. We respect it. But at the same time, if you think about the amount of money that has been capitalized into strictly quotas, are we really doing those people a favour?
I understand a dairy quota now is about $3,000 a cow or greater. So when you capitalize that, and Mr. Easter had a comment with respect to the national agricultural debt, from our information, the debt in supply management is growing faster than any other sector.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
My last question is to the bison industry. This is really a learning experience for me. I haven't had much contact with your industry or the cervid industry.
My question is, do you come under CFIA under agriculture, as opposed to wildlife? And secondly, if so, do you have to conform to the SRM deadline by July 12 that the cattle industry has to conform to? And if that's the case, are you seeing any stumbling blocks or problems, and how are you reacting to them?
April 18th, 2007 / 11:30 a.m.
Terry Kremeniuk Executive Director, Canadian Bison Association
Maybe I can answer that question.
First of all, CFIA is certainly the organization that takes care of the bison industry with respect to animal health and what have you.
With respect to SRM policy, the SRM policy does not apply to bison in Canada. However, having said that, if you're moving into the export market, you have to remove SRMs.
Most of the slaughter facilities have geared up in a manner such that they deal with the SRMs, so they aren't going to make special provision for bison with respect to SRMs. Those costs are going to be ultimately borne by the bison producers as well.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Where do you send your animals from this area for slaughter?
11:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Bison Association
Most of the animals are slaughtered in Alberta and marketed in Europe and the United States.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Just concerning the point on supply management, I think it should be noted that one of our biggest obstacles, in terms of the WTO and supply management and giving other countries ammunition to work against us, is coming from Canadian farm groups themselves.
The reality is that the view of the general public out there and of some organizations that don't give a damn about supply management is that we're protectionist.
The fact of the matter is, we allow more access into the Canadian market for dairy, poultry, and eggs than the Americans do into their market. We're not protectionist; they are. We provide access; we want to do it in a regulated way. We provide more access into our market than the U.S. does.
So why don't the groups that are opposed talk about that in terms of market access, rather than the kinds of things we're seeing in Geneva? I think the way we operate in Geneva is terrible, to be honest, especially with CAFTA going over there and talking against us.
On the pork situation here, we've had the same thing in both beef and pork in P.E.I., actually. Maple Leaf has closed down a plant. We worked out a deal where the plant has now been purchased by pork producers.
In Saskatchewan, where is WED—Western Economic Diversification? Why are they not involved in assisting you in terms of purchase of this plant or building a new one?
I'm just going to ask a series of questions and then go to answers.
Second to that, is there any indication—and the big thing you hit on, Neil, is the marketing of your product—that Maple Leaf is trying to sew up the supermarket shelves, in terms of shelf space or freezer space? These guys are brutal, to be honest with you. Are they trying to sew that up?
On the other issues, in terms of looking at business risk management we have to be much more strategic about it than we are. For instance, in the United States and many other countries around the world, they don't pay the inspection costs the way we do.
They're GATT green; why is the Government of Canada not paying those inspection costs? They're GATT green; they're not a trade impediment.
It's the same with on-farm food safety programs. I forget who mentioned it—I don't know whether it was Wayne or Mark—but it's the same thing there. The federal government could assist in terms of the non-food, under the guise of a green program. Should we be looking at some of those areas?
I really think we have to look completely differently at how we're doing this thing. The Americans are getting away with murder in terms of funding; we're not. We have to restructure how we look at the thing.
Those are the questions for the moment.
11:35 a.m.
General Manager, Saskatchewan Pork Development Board
Mr. Easter, if I remember your questions, there are two of them, both with respect to Maple Leaf.
On the first one, in terms of the retail, I appreciate that during the restructuring that Mr. McCain has done, he's focusing really entirely on the domestic market, and I think the international one is really not where he wants to be. So he is very significant to that.
We think in western Canada here he has greater than 90% of the shelf space for product. Quite frankly, the retailers don't necessarily like that position and they're looking forward to others entering the market, so we get a very receptive ear from those folks.
With respect to WED, they may come to play with respect to this plant here. It's yet to be determined, but I want to bring to your attention that as producers move into the value chain, it's very important we get support from the federal level as well.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
On the rest of Mr. Easter's questions, who wants to go first?
Mr. Bacon.
11:35 a.m.
President, Canadian Canola Growers Association
I just want to touch a little bit on food safety. I sit on the food safety for grains and oilseeds, and as we move down that road, it seems to me that it's trying to be pushed down instead of pulled along. I guess my concern is that if the people out there don't really want to pay for it, then we shouldn't be doing it.
Farmers can't bear any more costs for on-farm food safety. Our costs of running a farm right now and our margins are so low that any more costs coming on our farm are going to be putting us at great risk.
I really think that those people and companies that demand we keep records—and as you know in grains and oilseeds there's nothing out there that really affects us right now that we're not dealing with—should be paying for it.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Bison Association
Maybe I can just make a comment with respect to on-farm food safety and traceability. We certainly agree with the comments that have been made. Very often we believe that producers do not get sufficient recognition for the in-kind contributions that they make in terms of many of these programs, and it's very significant. Maybe we as producers don't market that well enough, as well.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the things that was touched on, maybe not directly but incidentally in some of yours and in some of the questions, was input costs. The one thing I'm hearing more and more about from my grains and oilseeds producers this year is fertilizer bills. They walk out with sticker shock if they hadn't priced their fertilizer last fall. The guys who locked in last fall are all looking like financial geniuses, maybe by accident, but they are.
Some of the things have been mentioned--regulatory costs, etc.--but I'm looking for ideas in each of your industries on what could be done to lower your input costs. You've touched on some of them incidentally in going through, but could you organize all of them and add to any other ideas you have that could help to lower your input costs, and any programming or any changes the government can do on various issues to help lower your input costs.
11:40 a.m.
President, Canadian Canola Growers Association
Well, that's a good question, and you hit the nail right on the head when you talked about costs of production going up tremendously. Fertilizer, basically, has doubled in the last six months.
I think the one thing that governments can do is since the taxes are in the production of the products, if they could be removed, that's one of the ways I think you could deal with it. If you take anhydrous ammonia, it's basically made from natural gas. Of course, it has quite a few taxes within that product. If you could figure out some way of getting the taxes out of there.... I'm just not sure how it would be relate back to farmers or whether the different industries that are producing the commodity would take the profit and not pass it back to producers.
One of the concerns is, how do you get those dollars back to producers as we move forward? That's a tough road to go down. It seems like a lot of supply and demand works one way but doesn't work the other way.