Evidence of meeting #30 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was product.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Order, please.
We're going to continue with debate on the motion from Mr. Atamanenko that was suspended last meeting.
Mr. Storseth, I believe you had the floor.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to reset the mood to where we were before Mr. Easter had somebody go pull the fire alarm for him. We were talking about the issue of KVD. Mr. Miller and Mr. Lauzon set out our position on it fairly well. Listening to Mr. Easter, I couldn't help but tweak some of the things I heard from him.
In the last committee meeting, he said:
One of the reasons Canada is seen as the best quality supplier in the world is because of our grading system. Having said that, I think certainly whether it is the hog industry or the livestock industry, if there were another method of assuring the quality of the grain that we are exporting out of the country, such as using black box technology or something else, then doing away with the KVD would certainly be a benefit to growing new and perhaps more productive crops with other characteristics.
But what is at risk here is our quality control system. The minister jumped the gun. He is coming in with a proposal without the assurances on the other side that our quality control system won't be jeopardized.
I know Guy said that the Canadian Wheat Board has a plan in place. That's not what I've been told. So unless we can have a witness here from the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission who is going to tell us that there won't be a problem on August 1 and that our quality system won't be jeopardized by this move, I have no choice but to support this motion.
Mr. Easter is always very much in touch with the Canadian Wheat Board. He should read their website, where they actually talk about KVD. The Canadian Wheat Board says:
For the 2008-09 crop year, this means only one significant change for farmers: you must sign a declaration when you deliver in the 2008-09 crop year, attesting to the eligibility of the variety you are delivering. A declaration will be required by each company and delivery point that you deliver to. Truck load samples will be retained for monitoring purposes.
It goes on to say:
KVD assigns visual characteristics, such as seed-coat colour and kernel shape, to each class. KVD elimination will help plant breeders by removing visual characteristics as selection criteria on varieties going forward for registration. It has no material impact on Canada’s quality control system.
Mr. Chair, this is particularly relevant to Mr. Easter's comments. The Canadian Wheat Board's website says “it has no material impact on Canada's quality control system”. This is right off the Canadian Wheat Board website.
I had a brief conversation with Mr. Earl Geddes last night, who I'm sure Mr. Easter is aware of, at the Canadian Wheat Board. They have no concerns about the elimination of KVD at this time. Mr. Easter has previously remarked on Mr. Elwin Hermanson's eminent qualifications and his great expertise in this area. Mr. Hermanson is also on the record in supporting this.
I don't think I have to go into our position in much more detail. Taking into account Mr. Easter's comments, the statement of the Canadian Wheat Board, and the opinion of the Canadian Grain Commission, I believe Mr. Easter should be reversing his decision and supporting our side rather than this motion.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
No, I have somebody still on the speaking list, and you can't call the question until the speaking list is done.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Brian's comments sound good, Mr. Chair, but they're a little far from reality.
I do believe, as I said previously, that there's a lot at risk in changing the KVD system. I recognize what's on the website. The Canadian Wheat Board, on its website, in terms of signing a declaration, is basically trying to transfer risk from the Canadian Wheat Board, if there is a screw-up in quality, to individual farmers who sign that declaration. It has nothing to do with our international reputation. This committee needs to be absolutely assured by somebody other than Earl Geddes, by either some of the directors of the Wheat Board or the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board, that this can be handled.
Alex's motion, in fact, doesn't close the door. It says, “...only proceed with its removal when a variety identification system that has gained the confidence of those whose interests are protected by the current KVD system has been put in its place”.
So Alex's motion leaves this committee the option of pulling somebody from the Canadian Wheat Board in here who has the authority to speak for the Wheat Board in a public arena, on the record.
As far as the Canadian Grain Commission and Hermanson goes, I wouldn't accept Hermanson's committee evidence here. We passed a motion at this committee. He's shown to be a mouthpiece of the minister, and the minister wants to move on this. The Canadian Grain Commission's independence has been compromised by that appointment, and we stated that at this committee.
So my position remains the same. We will support this motion, and I would encourage the chair and the government to bring someone forward from the Canadian Wheat Board to give us assurances that our quality system is not going to be compromised. You can bring both the Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission, if you like, but we can have a quick meeting and be assured that our system is not going to be compromised, because we're the best in the world in terms of quality, and let's not jeopardize that.
May 1st, 2008 / 9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just want to reiterate that farmers want this. Farmers have been asking for this. On this side of the table we put farmers first, and that's why we think this motion is redundant.
Wayne, you talked about people not wanting this, etc. Well, I have a page and a half of quotes here from various leaders of various organizations who say, “Yes, it's the best thing they could possibly do”.
Here's one from Brian Fowler, from the University of Saskatchewan Crop Development Centre. He says “it”—removal of KVD—“opens up new opportunities”.
Jeff Reid, the vice-president of the Canadian Seed Trade Association, said, “Western Canadian farmers could reap hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits from new wheat varieties if the rules governing kernel visual distinguishability were less strict....”
I won't read them all, by the way, but I have one that I want to just finish with. It's from Eugene Dextrase, the chairman of the Alberta Grain Commission, and he says:
We support eliminating KVD as a criterion for all wheat registration, early in 2008.
—early in 2008—
We know you are aware of the limitations KVD has placed on the western wheat industry, hampering innovation and stifling investment and initiative at the breeding level and throughout the various value chains.
We need to put farmers first. We need to give farmers what they want.
Thank you.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I find it distasteful that we're wasting time on, basically, anti-farmer motions like this, especially when we have witnesses sitting here who have taken the time to come and be with us.
Getting rid of the KVD is something that farmers want, as Mr. Lauzon and a few others have said.
As far as Mr. Easter's comments go about the Wheat Board wanting that, we found out in barley that they only represent 32% of the western producers, let alone the rest of Canada. I come from a part of Canada where you have the choice. There is no KVD. You don't have to worry about this. It goes back to what the farmers want, and they wouldn't be asking for something that was going to be a detriment to their making a living, or whatever. They know better than anybody, not some bureaucrat sitting in an office, whether it be in Toronto or Winnipeg, or wherever.
So let's use a bit of common sense, instead of partisan sense, and defeat this motion.
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
The mere fact of being seated on one side of the table rather than the other leads to partisan comments. I will not be indulging in partisanship, but I want to assure you that the members of the Bloc Québécois are convinced, as I'm sure everyone else here is, that we must come to the aid of farmers and side with them. I disagree with Larry when he says that this initiative goes against the needs of farmers.
I want to come back to the question I was asking Mr. Lauzon before the fire alarm interrupted me at the last committee meeting. Mr. Lauzon had told us at the time—and he has just said the same thing here today—that there was no need to vote in favour of this motion because in any event, everyone wants kernel visual distinguishability to be eliminated. We all agreed on that when we examined Bill C-39.
I also seem to recall that we all agreed—and perhaps I'm mistaken and so I'd like to put the question to Mr. Lauzon—not to eliminate KVD until another method had been implemented. Witnesses had also expressed to us their concerns about this.
The fact is that an alternative method has not yet been implemented. Yet, Mr. Lauzon had told us that according to the minister, everything was moving along well and that preparations for a new method were under way. However, we have no proof if this, hence the importance of this motion and of our support for Mr. Atamanenko's motion. When everything is done properly, then we will be prepared to give him our support.
Mr. Lauzon, what's happening with the alternative method that the committee had requested and that does not yet appear to have been implemented?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
One of the things that truly disappoints Canadians when it comes to politics in this place is when politicians say one thing, know one thing to be true, and go and vote the exact opposite for partisan reasons.
Mr. Bellavance truly believes his position.
While I disagree with Mr. Atamanenko, I respectfully appreciate his position on this. He chooses to discuss these things.
But Mr. Easter knows better. He knows that it's the other way and he voices the other way in countless statements, and he still goes forward with his partisan ways.
I have a report here, quite an interesting little report, many of whose initiatives we have actually already completed as a government in two years. It's called “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace, A Report by the Honourable Wayne Easter”. One of the things he talked about in there is that all governments place a priority on measures. One of his recommendations is that “governments place a priority on measures that will enhance farmers' economic returns from the marketplace”.
That's exactly what we're trying to do here, Mr. Chair. We have farmers saying this; we have the Canadian Wheat Board saying this; we have the Canadian Grain Commission saying this; and we have industry saying this, and Mr. Easter still decides to stand on his island, all alone, and refuse the will of western Canadian farmers, and in this case farmers all across the country.
He talks about how what he really needs now is the option to pull somebody in before this committee as a witness. We have that ability; we have that ability at any time we want. They have the votes over there to do so. If they wanted to bring the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board here—because the members or employees of the Canadian Wheat Board, such as Mr. Geddes, apparently no longer speak for them, according to Mr. Easter—then we can do that. But we do not need this motion.
What this motion says is that we recommend that the government abandon its plan to remove kernel visual distinguishability. This would harm our industry. This would harm what western Canadian farmers and farmers across this country have been asking for, and Mr. Easter knows that.
So I ask the members on the other side, who truly know the better choice in this, to please vote for it.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I would like to respond quickly to Mr. Bellavance's question. The Canadian Wheat Board is on side and is prepared to move forward tomorrow. An alternative method has been developed and all that remains is to make a decision to implement it.
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC
Mr. Chairman, the motion merely calls for a letter to be sent to the minister. Surely the minister is capable of answering a letter. How hard can it be for a minister to write a letter explaining why he is opposed to something like a transitional system?
We are requesting a transition period before KVD is replaced by an alternative method. All we need is a word from the minister and the issue will be resolved. Why are we afraid to write to a minister responsible for agriculture? This surprises me.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Is there any other debate? I see none, so I'm going to call the question.
9:15 a.m.
A voice
A recorded vote.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
A point of order first, Mr. Chairman.
Given the previous discussion and the fact that we've suggested that the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission be brought forward, can you and the clerk look at bringing them in for a special meeting so that we can deal with that issue appropriately?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
On the motion I have, I move the following:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture call Mr. Ian White the new President and CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board to appear before the committee as soon as possible.
To background this, Mr. Chairman, this motion was put forward a considerable time ago, and we all know what happened. The order in council somehow got lost on somebody's desk. We wanted to discuss Mr. White's credentials prior to his appointment.
That's now a fait accompli, if we could put it that way. I would suggest we pass this motion, but with the understanding that we not jeopardize the committee's other work, that Ian White be brought forward when possible. From my perspective, it wouldn't matter if it weren't until the fall, but I do believe we need to hear from him. I would have preferred it if we could have heard him prior to his appointment, but things happen and that's the way it is.
I put forward that motion in that context, and I'll leave it up to the chair when it can happen.
