Agriculture Committee on June 17th, 2008

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

Maybe one of your staff could get those numbers while I continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

If you know it off the top of your head, please—

[Martin Appelt]

The vast majority of the segment was input from industry, and I fully agree with your statement with regard to where the expertise and the knowledge sit.

With regard to the input from the animal welfare or animal rights communities, we certainly received a lot of input. The tendency is, as I'm sure you well know, to send chain letters and repetitive statements, and we counted all of those as one input.

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

Thank you. I'm glad to hear that it is from the industry; that's positive.

On the part about all the proposed changes, you talk about animal health, safety, and welfare. At the end of the day, I would hope that before anything is enacted, or whatever, it will be from the direction of either the government or through this committee and government. We certainly need that to happen.

How many instances of non-compliance have there been in recent years with our present regulations? I just need quick numbers.

[Catherine Airth]

I can tell you that in fiscal year 2006-07, we conducted 36,435 humane transport vehicle inspections; and of those, 463 instances of non-compliance were identified. So that translates roughly to a greater than 98% compliance rate for that year.

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

Okay, very good.

Is that it, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Well, I'll allow you one very, very brief question.

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

Would any of the proposed amendments, or what you're looking at right now, increase costs to transporters, and would they basically facilitate the work that transporters are doing?

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you very much for that.

It's important to note that beyond the regulations that exist currently, the industry in Canada has indeed been extremely responsible and has worked together to develop national recommended codes of practice for the care and handling of farm animals. Those codes have been an important part of our consideration in terms of proposing amendments to the regulations. So in effect, the proposals match the industry practices that have evolved, and they are reflected in those codes. So we don't anticipate that for the majority of the industry—which, as you have correctly recognized and the statistics bear out, is operating in compliance—the regulatory amendments will mean significant changes, because the industry is already working in compliance with the national codes that we have worked to develop with them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. The time has expired.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Thank you very much for being here.

There have been submissions and consultations. When are we going to see the results of the updated regulations? That's the first question.

The other comment I have is that in comparison with many countries in the industrialized world, our regulation standards are among the worst. The European Union, for example, which is now geographically expanding, is becoming larger, is strengthening its standards. I would hope that as we move forward we will strengthen and tighten up some of these standards.

In regard to comments on animal rights groups, somebody in this country has to ensure that what we're doing is humane. Obviously a compromise has to be reached between industry and other groups, but the implication that we shouldn't be listening to these people, I think, is wrong. I think we owe it to the people of this country to ensure that we have good, strong, humane regulations.

Specifically as another question on what we saw in regard to what was happening at Natural Valley Farms, horses were transported with horseshoes on and not separated. This is in violation of the Health of Animals Regulations, subsection 141(7).

Horses were transported in double-decker trailers. I refer you to the Health of Animals Regulations, under “Segregation,” section 142.

We saw that CFIA inspectors, according to that report, were absent for 10 or 12 hours.

I visited slaughterhouses a few years ago as an interpreter with a Russian inspector, and I saw how stringent CFIA is and how we actually had to shut down one plant that was not acceptable to be exporting to Russia at that time. From what I saw there, I'm just wondering, are you actually investigating this? Are you going to be tightening up this particular plant if in fact that's true? Are we going to be looking at other horse slaughter facilities to ensure this doesn't happen?

I don't have much time, so I'll stop there.

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you very much. I'll speak to the first part of your question and ask my colleague to address the investigation component of your question.

In terms of concluding the work and taking account of the output of our consultations and then moving forward, we will continue to work with our colleagues at Justice to prepare the regulatory amendments for consideration and ultimate publication in part I of the Canada Gazette, which will provide for a formal consultative process. I don't have a specific timeframe to offer you, because of course, in our work with Justice, it will have to fit within the range of priorities that both they and we have. However, we are committed to moving this forward as soon as possible. So that means it is among the regulatory priorities of the agency to advance this particular piece of regulatory amendments to part I for formal consultation.

In terms of taking account of the various voices, I'll reiterate what I said earlier. That is, within the agency, we're committed to taking account of all the input we receive, and we have benefited tremendously from the input of humane societies, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, and other NGOs interested in animal protection. So we will continue to take account of those voices, along with the voices of all stakeholders, in our process as we move forward both now and in the formal comments that we anticipate when amendments are published in part I of the Canada Gazette.

And as it relates to the investigation....

[Catherine Airth]

Thank you very much.

I would just like to indicate that during the winter CFIA was notified of potential mistreatment of animals at that plant. We conducted a thorough investigation of the plant's operations, and we did not find any animal welfare violations. Similarly, the provincial Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals conducted an investigation and also confirmed that the plant was following humane practices.

However, in response to The National's report, we will immediately examine any new allegations. We have a veterinarian in charge at that plant, so we'll conduct specific audits as required to verify that appropriate procedures are in place and are being followed. We're also going to consider the involvement of an external animal welfare expert or experts, and we'll be sitting down with plant management to review the commitments that were made during previous inspections and to evaluate their progress.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

I just want to comment.

Mr. Atamanenko talked about animal rights groups, and I hope you're talking about animal welfare groups and animal protection groups, because animal rights groups, of course, don't believe in the use of animals for human purposes in any way, shape, or form.

As a cattle producer myself, I have been taking a great deal of interest in this, talking to my friends in the trucking industry. As somebody who used to be a cattle buyer as well, I know there is great concern that the regulations will significantly impact on industry and may increase costs to transport if new regulations come into play based on space and trucks. It may make us very uncompetitive versus other jurisdictions around the world, particularly against the U.S. industry.

There is a great deal of hope that this will come into balance, especially in light of what Mr. Miller said. The bulk of the industry has a great reputation, especially the trucking firms that have a great deal of reputation, know-how, and experience in moving livestock across this country. I think often the problems have occurred with inexperience, and as you stated, there is a need for greater education, especially as we have new entrants into the livestock hauling industry.

With that, I thank you for your briefing and I look forward to seeing that in the Canada Gazette, part I.

We are at 10:30 and we're going to go back to motions, so our witnesses are dismissed. Thanks a lot.

We'll go right back to Mr. Boshcoff and Mr. St. Amand.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, with respect to Mr. Lauzon's motion, I note there's a speaking list of three or four individuals.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're at four right now.

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

I'm concerned that this is likely going to be our last meeting this session and that my motion will not be reached, or if it's reached, the debate will be less than fulsome. By any gauge, Mr. Lauzon's motion has absolutely no urgency attached to it, and unless his government decides to bring in a carbon tax, there's absolutely no potential for a carbon tax to be foisted on farmers over the summer, over the fall, and not until after the next election.

I would ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, that the motion, which is pressing...20 or 25 individuals have driven some 300 miles to be present for this motion, and they are wives and family members of tobacco farmers, so I would ask for unanimous consent that my motion be dealt with first, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Is there consent? There isn't consent, so we're going to continue with the speaking list I have. As long as there are speakers on the list, you have to have the debate.

As chair, my hope is that we'll get through both these motions and be adjourned before the natural resources committee comes in here at 11 o'clock.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Is there a way of putting a time limit on these?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Under the rules, as long as I have speakers on the list I have to take those speakers.

Right now I have Mr. Boshcoff, Mr. Storseth, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Bellavance.

Mr. Boshcoff, the floor is yours.

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

Thanks.

Just to make sure, I voted for unanimous consent to hear Mr. St. Amand's motion first.

Mr. Chair, the evidence is already conclusive that the motion we were talking about, about Canadian farmers and input costs, is already part of a cross-committee campaign. As confirmed yesterday, the member for Peterborough talked about the issue having been raised in the finance committee.

In half an hour, in this room, at the natural resources committee, we have a very similar resolution coming up. The fact that the notices of motion for these were all received by the clerks within a 36-hour period...I would hope the honourable member wouldn't dishonour himself. He must know this is going on across all these committees; it was in the House yesterday.

Mr. Chair, we have just produced a report on input costs and we all agreed on that. That would make this resolution either historical or out of order in some way, to assume there is a new input cost and that after all that research we had neglected to consider it, which I don't believe we have. So I'm hoping this is not a delay and an obstruction of this committee's work. The issues we have to deal with, rather than a possible platform or policy in a partisan way.... This is not the place for this.

Mr. Atamanenko also indicated that it was either ruled out of order or defeated in another committee. This committee usually gets along pretty well, so there's no place for this, and there certainly isn't a place for the resolution that's also coming up in the natural resources committee.

With all respect, I'm asking that this be ruled out of order.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm not going to rule it out of order, because as a committee we often deal with many motions that are out of sequence with the way we do studies around here. We're already into a fulsome debate on it, so I'm going to continue on with the debate.

Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do believe we need to be quick on this, so we can get to Mr. St. Amand's motion, but I do have to say that, as always, I appreciate my honourable colleagues across the way. Mr. Boshcoff's only real problem is that he's far too sincere to spin and win like Mr. Easter does. That's one thing I've learned Mr. Easter does very well.

Mr. Easter, you can call it a green shift for the farm economy, you can call it a carbon tax, you can call it whatever you want. You and I both know that the reason you dance around it the way you do is simply because it is going to damage rural Canada, not only farmers but rural Canadians who live in small communities. You know that as well as I do. There is no way you will be revenue neutral on an issue such as this.

This will affect people driving to and from work, this will affect people who drive great distances, this will affect farmers who are trying to cut input costs, and I do believe that this is not a hypothetical debate. This is the key point: this is not a hypothetical debate. This is a policy that has already been implemented by a Liberal government in British Columbia. It is already having negative effects on the farm community in British Columbia. Therefore, this is something we should look at.

I agree we should take some of the partisanship out of this. I would actually propose an amendment to this motion.

Mr. Chair, I would propose that we amend the motion to say that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food study the effects of a carbon tax or any broad-based environmental tax on Canadian farmers and ensure they are not saddled with a carbon tax which would increase their input costs and hurt their competitiveness.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have an amendment to the motion.

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

Might I speak to it for two seconds, Mr. Chair? I believe this is something that comes halfway. If you want to have a fulsome debate on a very real policy that is starting to be implemented in our country, I believe this is the role of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Nobody in this room should be scared of having this debate.