Mr. Bellavance.
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.
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.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I do not want to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman. Of course I realize that there is no need for Mr. St. Amand to specify “of all provinces”, but I want to be sure that this exit program applies to all tobacco farmers in Canada, including those in Quebec, and not just the ones in Ontario.
Is that in fact the gist of this motion?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We will continue to debate the main motion. I'm going to rule the amendment out of order, since it changes the intent of the original motion.
You have a question for Mr. St. Amand.
Mr. St. Amand, perhaps you can answer the question.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
It is my understanding that the only remaining tobacco producers are in Ontario. If I'm incorrect in that regard and there are yet some tobacco producers in Quebec who haven't been bought out, I think the motion should be inclusive.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, just on that point, André, I understand the exit proposal by the tobacco industry does include others in the country. We have one in P.E.I. as well--one that's left.
My understanding of the motion is that it would include an exit strategy for tobacco production in its entirety.
So on the motion, Mr. Chair, I know Larry indicated that he hadn't heard of any suicides in the industry. The fact of the matter is, Larry, we met with the tobacco industry, and it was stated at the meeting that there were suicides recently. I think it tells you the seriousness of the situation, Mr. Chair.
The government's move to Mr. Preston as chair of the task force is beside the point. The fact of the matter is the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration committed to an exit strategy some time ago, and the government has broken its word. It's as simple as that; they broke their word. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration didn't show up at a public meeting last week; she found another excuse.
At the meeting I was at with tobacco producers, the urgency of this situation was made very clear by a banker in attendance. That crop is certainly in the greenhouses somewhere around May 7 to May 9, I believe--and, Lloyd, you can correct me if I'm wrong--and the bank would be looking at the crop in those greenhouses and making a decision such that the bank would stick with only 7% of that production, because the asset levels in those operations have dropped from about 80% to 20% of the original value that the bank extended money on.
The bank made it clear at the meeting that they will very seldom make a financial decision based on what they have taken to be a political commitment, and the political commitment was given by the then MP, Diane Finley. The lending community had lent on the basis that there would be an exit strategy following up on the one the previous government had put in place. Now the government has backed away from that strategy.
The facts are these. The federal government has a responsibility here, regardless of the political party. There's been an anti-smoking strategy in place, which even the tobacco industry agrees with us was the right thing to do. This is a legitimate industry that operated under the laws of the land. It is a farming community that is now affected by a massive government policy toward anti-smoking. They produce a legal product in a legitimate industry, but government policy itself is shrinking their market.
The other area the federal government has a responsibility for--and they made it very clear, and it is true--is that 40% of the product now in place in Canada is contraband. For a law and order government, the government is not dealing with that contraband coming in and going on the market. That further restricts their market, and as a result, these tobacco producers, in a completely legal and legitimate industry, find themselves being forced out of their industry. And their asset base is dropping. The government had committed itself to an exit strategy, and to come up with excuses for funding more task forces is unacceptable.
I do not know if this is true or not, but they had indicated to us that they felt they had a commitment from the Minister of Agriculture that there would be funding in the budget. As we know, the funding wasn't in the budget.
So, Mr. Chair, I strongly support this motion. It is really a motion trying to force the government, for once, to keep its word. That's what it's about.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I have an amendment I want to propose, and I don't know whether now is the time.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You can't move an amendment on a point of order.
You're next on the list after Mr. Preston.
Mr. Preston.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I'd like to carry on from what I've said. I know that in all good faith Mr. St. Amand has been working very hard on this problem too. I will say that there even were pieces of truth in what Mr. Easter said.
I agree that we need to find a solution to the problem we're talking about here today. I think the amendment Mr. Lauzon originally moved brought us closer to being able to break the problem into its parts. There are many parts, not just the actual growers of tobacco.
I have many friends and neighbours who certainly grow tobacco still. I've been working very hard for a solution for them, through hundreds of meetings with the tobacco board, meetings with those producers, and yes, Mr. Easter, even meetings with bankers to talk to them about what's happening on the ground. I know--and some of you would say it's from experience--that the easiest way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. This is a very big problem, and it needs to be taken care of one problem at a time.
As you stated, I'm currently trying to steer a task force on the economic development portion of this area, the five-county area that grew tobacco in southern Ontario, looking at it from the point of view that it's a single-industry area. It's like a single-industry town. Mr. Boshcoff, you'd know this from some of the lumber things. This is a community that has relied, from an economic point of view, on one product for a number of years. The area was very affluent. The product did very well for the area. It's not there any more. For many reasons the economy has gone away.
Through a task force of mayors and economic development officers, we're looking at another way to deal with the economy for that area, looking at what existing programs are in place from government, and even to the point of looking at what other transitional crops there are and what other things we can grow in that sandy soil where tobacco used to grow. We know that's one side of the problem.
I believe Mr. St. Amand mentioned at the start of his comments that around the world there have been other strategies to replace tobacco, and they've all included different formulas. Some of them involved manufacturers, some of them involved governments, some of them involved tobacco growers themselves determining that they're going to leave the business.
I'm suggesting, and Mr. Lauzon's amendment stated very clearly, that this is about working together with all the stakeholders, and not just imposing a government solution on the problem. I tend to agree with that. We have to move forward with all the partners: growers, manufacturers, communities, and federal and provincial governments. These growers have licensed quota under the Ontario provincial government. I'm not ruling them out as being part of the solution. I think that's the point. We need to move forward.
I have to commend Mr. St. Amand for his move forward, but having it be singularly focused as only a federal government solution, I can't support it. I know my friends and neighbours are in the same straits as his friends and neighbours. We have to find a way to solve this problem by working together and not by nitpicking or picking it apart and sledge-hammering a solution through.
Mr. Chair, I hope we can find a way to make the motion have a better solution than it does, just being singularly focused.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to propose an amendment now, and I'd like to speak to it.
I want to stress that I'm amending it and not totally changing it. I propose that the motion say:
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food calls on the Federal Government to immediately implement an exit strategy for tobacco producers and to continue to work with all partners to find a workable way forward for tobacco growers, manufacturers, communities, and federal and provincial governments.
I'm taking nine words off Mr. St. Amand's motion and replacing them with that.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Okay. It's all of Mr. St. Amand's motion up to the point where it says “tobacco producers”. From that point we would add the words starting with, “and to continue to work with all partners”.
The reason I think it's important to have this facet in the motion is that you have to work with everybody. This isn't just about the tobacco growers. This isn't just about the federal government. The community is involved. That's one thing I heard in the meeting I had with mayors and councillors from that area who came to my office. I met with them, probably out of respect for my colleague here and the fact that I'm a farmer and I wanted to hear some of the problems down there. I know right now how communities are being affected in my area by the problems we're having in the pork and beef sectors. I think it's important that everybody involved gets in on this.
I think, too, one example we can show of where there is a responsibility all the way around is the recent initiative in the hog sector. While there has been some money out there to help reduce the number of hogs that end up on the market.... As we all know, and the pork industry will admit as well, there is an oversupply right now. In order to reduce that, $50 million was put out. The government has a responsibility in there, but there is some onus on the producers as well. When you put those all together and you add in some of the other components here, and stakeholders....
There is a comment I would make with regard to Mr. Easter's comments. You know, you'd think from listening to Wayne that this tobacco crisis just started as of January 23, 2006. You'd think that every problem, or what have you, started on that date. We all know differently. This has been ongoing.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask that at the next meeting, or soon thereafter, I be given a copy of the Liberal Party of Canada's exit strategy when the election got called on November 29, 2005. I want to see a copy of that exit strategy.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just so everybody is clear, we're debating the amendment.
Mr. St. Amand.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, you've ruled this amendment in favour?
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Do I understand this amendment to delete “consistent with the most recent proposal they have submitted”?
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Because we're still talking about an exit strategy, and that was the intent of the motion. It's in order.
Mr. St. Amand.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to Mr. Miller and Mr. Preston, I'll try to be as diplomatic as possible.
The reality is that tobacco farmers are facing a severe crisis, to the point where some of them have taken their own lives. What they do not need from the federal government--the federal government that leads the nation, as far as I understand it--is some banal, vapid, diluted, watered-down phraseology such as “continue to work with all partners”.
Mr. Chair, it's an absurdity. This is not a new problem. The government has been the government for 27 months. The members opposite are proposing to continue working together; let's all try to get along. But if the manufacturers want to veto something, there goes any type of exit strategy.
Simply put, the federal government needs to take the lead. The federal government is being asked to immediately implement an exit strategy for tobacco producers.
We will all recall, I suspect, the Minister of Agriculture in the House, when I asked him a couple of times about this, saying that we will get the job done sooner rather than later. Well, let me tell you, tobacco producers did not interpret that to mean we'll “continue to work with all partners”, or we'll develop a task force.
Simply put, I can't vote, in good conscience, in favour of the amendment. I think the federal government has to step up to the plate, after 27 months, and actually do something in a concrete fashion for tobacco producers in this country.
May 1st, 2008 / 9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Chair, in fairness, I was under the impression that there had been negotiations in 2007 at the ministerial level with the previous minister, and then sometime in December or January some kind of clear commitment that it would be included in the budget. So I can understand Mr. Preston's going forward with the task force, because I've been on many for single-industry situations.
It would help me if I knew there was a commitment, or was it just media speculation that something was coming?
Do you know, Mr. Chair?