Agriculture Committee on May 27th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Order. We're back in session.

Mr. Bellavance.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It wanted this to be on the record because I think Mr. Steckle was right to mention this morning the government's announcement about Canadian products. We cannot criticize the announcement, since we have been working on this very issue, and I think all parties agreed that some changes were in order.

Was I surprised to see the Prime Minister take advantage of a photo opportunity, with a farm orchard serving as a bucolic backdrop? Not at all, because last week, he was photographed with members of the military. Next week, he might be photographed with police officers and the week after that, he could be standing next to a car and talking about automobile theft, or in a garage announcing a cut to the GST. There are countless photo opportunities. That is how this government operates.

When asked by a reporter whether I felt, as a member and vice-chair of the committee, that the committee's efforts had been trumped by the government's announcement, I responded that it was impossible to think otherwise. Furthermore, I believe the government's plans as far as this issue is concerned have already been made and that the government held off unveiling them on May 21. I believe that's true because of the comments the parliamentary secretary would make each time witnesses would speak to certain specific issues. Mr. Lauzon would often comment that the minister agreed with something or other the witnesses had said and that they couldn't begin to know how much he agreed with their position.

Therefore, I always had the impression that the government had already come to a decision as to the criteria for changes to the labelling of products in Canada. My impression was ultimately confirmed when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food made this announcement. It is sad and unfortunate for the witnesses who made their views known to the committee.

Moreover, the committee will be drawing up some recommendations. I have to wonder how useful they will be since clearly, the government has already decided how the new policy on Canadian products will be drafted. Our time would have been better spent on other matters. That is unfortunate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Atamanenko, and then Mr. Lauzon.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thanks, James.

I would like to reiterate what Paul and André have said. When I heard the announcement--actually, I was asked to respond, but I didn't have a chance to, since I was out of cell range and all that kind of stuff--I just found it kind of strange. Although I welcome the initiative of the Prime Minister, I would have thought there would have been some kind of wording that said, for instance, “We're watching closely what the committee is doing, and we're going to work closely with the committee to try to implement the recommendations.” But that kind of cooperative spirit wasn't shown.

As well, I question the relevance of what we were doing here. I question the relevance of bothering all these people to come as witnesses here.

Our minister is a former chair of this committee. Obviously he knows how things work and how we try to work things together.

To my colleagues across the table, I'm just wondering what you think. I know we often don't agree, but I do have a lot of respect for your opinions. I don't want to put you on the spot, so I'm not sure if you want to respond now or later, but we have worked together. This is not a contentious issue. It's not something we're divided on. The recommendations, with some modifications and some compromise, we probably will all agree on, and probably unanimously. I don't quite understand why this is happening, and I'm just wondering if you feel the same way I feel. Is the work of this committee relevant? And if we feel that maybe we've all been slighted, perhaps we should have some kind of wording to our minister in terms of trying to make this a priority.

I'm not sure how to attack this. I just know that I'm going to be throwing some stuff together today, because I'm not happy with what has happened. I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Lauzon.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry the opposition feel the way they do. I think that, as you have said, we're all going together on this. I think there's 100% agreement that this is a good thing and that it is what we want for our producers and our agriculturalists.

The whole idea of this report is going to be part of the consultation. The regulation and everything is not set in stone. This is part of the process.

Alex, I disagree with you. I think a lot of what these witnesses brought forth is going to shape and is in our report and then, going on to the final draft, will form part of.... That's what we'll have, as a result of what these witnesses brought forth and what the committee has brought forth.

I feel bad that a good-news story is turning out to be.... Hopefully it doesn't, but I would hate to see it be a bad-news story, because I think we all have the producers' interest at heart.

I think we're headed to a hell of a good thing here, which we as a total committee can be proud of. Maybe, if we can take a look at it a little differently, the glass is half full rather than half empty. It's too bad, Paul, that—as I think you said—the government has to make announcements. It chose to make an announcement, but this report is going to be considered and seriously considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

What we have come out with certainly doesn't make our work here illegitimate. We've called all the witnesses; they've been here. We know what the public wants. We know what the agriculture sector wants; we know what the consumer wants; I think I know what this committee wants. We're all headed in the same way.

Paul, nobody other than myself have I ever heard.... You've been as exasperated as I have been over the years at how slowly things happen in government. You don't have to be a rocket scientist, in the Prime Minister's or the minister's office, to know that, from the feedback we had from our witnesses, this was the right thing to do.

With him going ahead and acting, we have a chance here today to basically endorse the action. If you want to tweak it or something, everybody has that right, but for God's sake, let's not play politics with this. It's the right thing to do, and in no way does it make our work obsolete or whatever.

We have a job to do to follow this through and get it as part of legislation and enacted for the benefit not just of our farmers, who need it more than anybody, but of the consumer.

The one thing I hear from consumers all the time when my urban people phone me up is, “Larry, we hope you're helping agriculture. We hear the problems out there. What can we do to help?”

I always say, “Well, if you don't buy local, buy Canadian”. They say, “Well, things are confused in the grocery story. We don't know what we're buying.” So I know they're going to want this.

To me, the intent of the Prime Minister is not to take anything away from the committee. It's to get something done that's the right thing to do and to quit delaying it.

I was surprised it happened this quickly, but I'm very pleased that it did, and I think we all should be.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Before I get to Mr. Easter, let me say we're getting a lot of BlackBerry interference on the mikes today. So keep the BlackBerrys off the table and away from the mikes, please.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I think this was extremely unfortunate and wrong on the part of the Prime Minister to do it this way. I really do think it's a slap in the face to the relevance of parliamentarians and the relevance of committee. I went through the transcript and I went through the Prime Minister's release. The Prime Minister has to know, I expect, that this committee has been holding hearings for a couple of months, but not a word. If the Prime Minister had even said in here that he's following up on the work of the committee or that he's looking forward to the committee work--but nowhere in his transcript, or even in the media scrum, is the work of this committee mentioned.

My first impression when I listened to the press conference was that I was glad to see we were moving ahead with “Product of Canada”, but what about the relevance of the committee? What are we, chicken soup? Why did we bother? I mean, go to the listof.... There's the Prime Minister own consultation process that he talks about in his release:

We’re seeking feedback from Canadians on our proposed initiative. Over the coming days and weeks the Minister of Agriculture and Canadian Food Inspection Agency officials will meet with a wide range of key stakeholders including farm groups, processors, retailers and consumer groups. .... The timeline for consultations is May 21 through June 11, 2008.

We met with all those groups. Why do we bother meeting? Why don't we just turn it over to the Minister of Agriculture and CFIA to do their thing? That's the way I felt.

I think it was wrong for the Prime Minister to do it this way and not at least give some relevance to the chair of the committee and committee members, who have done good work. I think we've done good work, but now I have to question if it was worth the effort. I see the role of Parliament and the role of committees undermined and undercut by the way the Prime Minister did this, and the lack of at least acknowledgement that the committee itself has done a lot of work here.

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

When you've been in politics as long as you have, you should have thicker skin.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's not about having thick skin. It's not going to hurt me any, but I think it does hurt the relevance of Parliament. You wonder sometimes if this Prime Minister even gives any relevance to his own caucus. Everything is run out of the PMO.

He certainly ignored Parliament and the work of all members on this committee: Conservative, Liberal, NDP, and Bloc.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Steckle.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank you for the opportunity once again to address what I addressed earlier in camera.

I am a former chair of this committee. Wayne and I have been on this committee off and on since 1993, so we're nearing 15 years around this table. Over the years we've had agreements and disagreements, and we've had very important decisions made. I think this committee has done great work over the last many years. I've been proud to serve on this committee because I was proud to serve the people who elected me, and they were farmers.

On this issue we're not only talking about farmers but about consumers; all of us as Canadians are involved in this. I have never seen this committee work better on an issue than on this particular issue. I was so looking forward to coming into a meeting today, or two weeks ago, whenever this was going to happen, and being able to sit down and think, with a bit of tweaking here and there, we were going to be able to follow the recommendations as outlined by our person from the department.

And here we are this morning. When I heard the announcement last week in the Prime Minister's own words, he was basically precluding the work of the committee. As referenced by my colleague, never did he mention the committee, the work they were doing. Going forward and having more consultations with the same people or the same kind of people we dealt with--obviously they'd necessarily be the same people--we could conclude we would never find the end number of people we should listen to.

I just felt as a member of Parliament, not myself only but all members on both sides of the table, that our privileges.... And you're going to tell me my privileges weren't violated, but my privilege was violated, in my estimation. Whether your good book tells you that or not isn't really important to me. The fact is that my attitude coming into this morning's meeting has changed as a result of what happened last week.

Mr. Miller speaks about not making this political. Well, it was nothing but political. That's what it was. I would like to think the work this committee does is important, that the recommendations we conclude when we're finished with this report will be reported, and that if guidelines are used in bringing forward these recommendations that they be done quickly and that there be due credit given to the people around this table. I'm not looking for credit for myself; this is for Canadians. Canadians have told all of us that we need to move forward on this file, and we've done that.

Mr. Chair, you have done a good job of leading this committee on this issue, and I commend you for it. I just feel the work we have done has been violated by what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture did last week. As others have said, it was simply for political purposes. I feel that unless this changes, this committee cannot function with the same kind of cordiality we have enjoyed around this table. While we've had our differences, I think that's what this is all about. But again we were able to have good work done here, and that's what this committee is all about.

I would encourage you, Mr. Chair, that when this work is finished, if you think it's worthy of us going forward, that the Prime Minister and the minister be made aware that these recommendations had better be a big part of what goes forward in terms of the guidelines, regardless of what he hears in those consultations in the 21 days going forward. This is where the work was done. We were commissioned to do this work. We've done our work. I want to see the work conclude in such a way that Canadians recognize that government is working for them, not just the politicians.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with all those who have spoken, except Mr. Miller. I particularly take issue with Mr. Miller's naive comment that we shouldn't be playing politics with this. Frankly, that wasn't our intention. It was the Prime Minister who decided to play politics with this in his lengthy press announcement neglecting or failing to make any mention whatsoever of the workings of the committee.

There's a clear thread throughout the Prime Minister's comments, Mr. Chair, that it's a done deal. I'm quoting: “We have made a plan to update the labels according to our new guidelines”, he repeats “our new guidelines, under our plan, under our new rules”. Mr. Chair, it's a done deal. I presume when the Prime Minister uses the collective “we” or “our” he's referring to himself, Minister Ritz, and Minister Clement, because there's nary a mention of you, Mr. Chair, let alone the workings of the all-party committee. If in fact it's already a done deal—and it surely seems to be a done deal, as this is a government plan that is being advanced, and nothing to do with the committee—then I don't know why we would bother to spend one or two meetings dealing with a report that has now been rendered superfluous, whose recommendations have been undermined by the Prime Minister's announcement.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think the first thing we need to start with, point of fact, is that this government continues to work with Canadians and continues to listen to Canadians. This committee is one stream of information that has come in. These consultations that were announced is another stream. I'm sure the minister and the Prime Minister and the government will take all the information, all the recommendations that are gathered from all the streams that are out there, to make the recommendations and final changes that are going to come forward.

But addressing the political side of this.... I mean, this is a joke. The only thing this threw a kink in was when Wayne was going to send out his press release taking credit for all of it. Mr. Easter willingly admits that the Liberal government looked at this for two years and didn't get anything done. He admits it in his own press release.

We are finally trying to get something done on some of these things. This committee has done a lot of good work on it. There are going to be more consultations, more stakeholders involved. We want to see action on some of these things.

The only response I've had from constituents is that they're happy to see the Government of Canada moving forward for consumers and for producers. Mr. Easter even admits that we knew long ago that this measure could improve farm income and provide valuable information to consumers. Why do you want to delay this any longer? Let's move forward with getting this done. These are Mr. Easter's own words.

We need to move forward and continue to work together and put forward strong recommendations. I think it helps to see where the government is coming from on some of these things. Maybe we can strengthen some of the recommendations we want to make, but there's nobody saying we're not going to be relevant when it comes to the overall result of this.

Each and every one of you put out press releases, and none of you are going to give the committee chair any kudos for the work that was done on this. It's embarrassing.

We have people like Len Troup, the chairman of the Ontario Tender Fruit Producers' Marketing Board, saying, “...this is absolutely an improvement. It's the right thing to do, and I shook the prime minister's hand and thanked him for it.”

Now, let's continue moving forward with getting things done for Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Lauzon.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

We're going off the rails here, and it's unfortunate. Like Brian, after the announcement I got nothing but good news from the producers and consumers. And it wasn't partisan. They said this is long overdue; we should have had this, etc., etc.

We've done a good thing. We've started a good thing. Maybe your concerns are a little premature. Let's say--

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Who's “we”? Who are you talking about?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

All of us. You're talking semantics.

I mean, if you can read through the final version and see that we've had some input.... I think that would have been the time to question this. Do you want to wait until the fall? Do you want to wait until next whatever--next January?

I think the government took some action. Maybe it was a little premature, but we're heading in the right direction. We're going to have input. There's going to be some additional consultation. We're going to have our say, as a committee, and we're going to be able to take the credit. But if we start fighting like other committees, all of us collectively are going to have egg on our faces.

I think this report is going to be included in the final version, and hopefully it will put your concerns at rest.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I have a final couple of comments.

If what you're saying, Guy, and what Brian and Larry have said reflects what you folks are saying over there, I don't think you get it. I don't think you understand.

It's not that I'm against what the Prime Minister is doing, but we have a democratic process. We have an all-party committee, and on this issue we will probably come out with a report where we're not even disagreeing on a lot of issues. It's the fact that somewhere in this announcement it could have been mentioned that “I, as Prime Minister, support the work of the committee”.

Why wasn't the chair at that announcement? Why wasn't James there on behalf of us, and why wasn't he getting some credit as our chair: “This is the committee. They're doing the work. Let's recognize this, and let's make this a priority for us. We've gone through the democratic process. They've brought in witnesses, and we're going to look very closely and we're going to make the report a priority.” That's all we're saying.

I personally feel that regardless of what you say, what we're doing is irrelevant. That's how I feel. I want that for the record. I think there has to be some kind of recommendation coming out of this discussion to the minister and Prime Minister to reflect this.