Agriculture Committee on May 5th, 2009

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Very quickly, Jacques, we're talking about “Made in Canada” labelling again. What is wrong with having a label that identifies the percentage of the product and the country of origin of each of those percentages of the product? If a percentage is from Canada--be it 60%--another percentage is from China, and another percentage is from the Caribbean, let consumers determine for themselves whether or not it meets a specific standard, without requiring some arbitrary percentage to be applied.

[Jacques Légaré]

Well, it's a situation that could be evaluated, but I suggest that the consumer would not be prepared to evaluate properly the impact of the composition of a product. When you have part of it being more ingredients than the product itself, then how would you apply that to products that are imported? In the province of Quebec, 56% of the products consumed come from the province, but the balance is imported. How will you apply that? Right now we're not even able to analyze those products properly.

It may be an avenue, but I don't know whether it would be possible.

I would like to restate that yes, the legislation that existed before had to be changed because it was not reflective of the importance of Canadian content in products. Unfortunately, what has happened with the 98% is that it makes it very hard to live with.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Could I ask Mr. Pellerin a question?

Mr. Pellerin, I met with people from the Auditor General's office this morning, and they were talking about agriculture. It occurred to me, based on a presentation that was made a couple of weeks ago by a farmer in Alberta who was suffering closure of his farm because of the nematode problem, that the person really had no one to go to other than their MP. Fortunately, they did make that effort. I think it was Mr. Storseth, and I'm grateful he brought that witness forward.

Do you see there being value in an ombudsman being appointed in the agriculture industry, or do you see that as just another level of bureaucracy? If people see an injustice, they'll have someone to go to right away.

[Laurent Pellerin]

When those problems are really well solved and treated at the first level, we don't need this type of ombudsman to solve the problem. I think with a question like the nematodes or other compulsory cleaning of some farms--there's a case with pork now in Alberta--if it's a decision that the producer is not controlling, they'll have to be compensated for it. If the CFIA decides that this farmer cannot grow potatoes in his farm forever, it's a public decision, it's public relations, and the coverage of that problem has to be done before going to the ombudsman. If nobody takes the right decision and the producer is in a situation where he doesn't have a final answer in his case, somebody has to take care of that. If the MP is doing the job right, if he has to go to an ombudsman, I have no problem with that.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

Mr. Valeriote, we allowed you to ask a question, but you asked two, since I had just arrived. It is not your fault. However, I will extend the same privilege to Mr. Hoback. So we will have two questions to conclude. Then we will have to discuss future business.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, gentlemen, thank you very much for coming here. I know it's a busy time of year, going into May.

Lee, I know you're very busy this time of year trying to build your hives up for the honey season. What you've said here today has been very interesting. I have a lot of apiarists and honey producers in my area, and some of the things you brought up about the foreign content are definitely a big issue, and that's why our government has done what it's done on the content ruling.

I'm going to direct my time and my questions towards Mr. Pellerin, because, as you can see, there are a lot of things we do agree on, but there's one big thing in the room that we disagree on. Maybe I can use this time to help educate you on why I think you have some problems with the CFA and one of your members.

First of all, I just want to verify this. The CFA represents farmers, right?

[Laurent Pellerin]

There's no doubt in my mind.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

No doubt. That's what I thought you'd say, and I agree with you.

The question I have for you is why would you have an organization like the CWB as a member? They don't represent farmers. They're a marketing agency. They're a board that's set out to market our grain. Why are they taking my money and giving it to you, when they don't represent our views at all on any type of public policy or any type of agriculture policy?

[Laurent Pellerin]

Somebody from your side asked a question of the honey producer a couple of minutes ago about the system he wanted to be in place for controlling the quality of the product. Did he want a voluntary system or a mandatory system? And the answer was very clear.

If it's--

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

No, no, it's not clear. It's not clear. You have the honey cooperative association, and you can choose to join it or not to join it, if you want. You have that choice. Honey producers have that choice. If you tried to take that choice away from them, they'd be very upset. I know that for a fact.

What I'm upset with is that I have, for example, producers down in southern Saskatchewan who were wanting to form a cooperative to refine pasta. It would have been the only pasta plant in Canada. Our supposed marketing agency killed it.

We've had all sorts of ingenious ideas at the farmer level that could have taken value added into that industry and gone forward and actually created a huge industry in western Canada. One entity killed it. That entity belongs to your association.

I just can't understand why you would defend that entity. It has been so backward, and—

[Laurent Pellerin]

I will repeat what I said before, that if the western farmer decides to do differently from what they're doing now, ask the question; I will respect the answer of the farmer.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

We did have a plebiscite on the issue. The plebiscite was very clear that they wanted change, and they wanted a difference on barley.

[Laurent Pellerin]

That's not my reading of the results.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, you have your interpretation and we have ours, I guess, but reality is reality. Western Canadian farmers want to be lifted from the burden of a CWB. Why would your organization come here, claiming to represent western Canadian farmers, and say the opposite?

APAS, an organization that I actually was a member of for one year, wouldn't touch the topic, yet they are one of your members. They would not touch the topic of the Canadian Wheat Board. So why would you take it on?

[Laurent Pellerin]

I want to correct you on that.

All of the western organizations and CFA respect the position that western farmers will take, or took in the past, about the Canadian Wheat Board. It's the same thing for APAS, KAP, and Wild Rose. They all submit the same position. They are respectful of the decision that the farmers will take about the Canadian Wheat Board; if they change their minds about it, we will respect that.

Never forget, though, that perhaps the tool will have to be improved. Perhaps a larger share of farmers have to control the board. There are lots of ideas there, and lots of possibility.

We have to continue to study the Canadian Wheat Board and to improve the movement of the farmer through the Canadian Wheat Board. At the end, though, I will not be the one who decides. I'm just representing Canadian farmers and saying what they tell me about the Canadian Wheat Board and all other subjects.

You can be sure that I've been in western Canada and that I've asked the question directly of farmers. I'm not here on my own view. I respect what western farmers tell me about collective marketing, about getting together and not being under the control of a couple of big companies like the Cargills and Bunges of the world.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Or of the CWB.

[The Acting Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

Thank you, Mr. Pellerin.

That's all the time we have today.

I also wish to thank all the other witnesses who took the trouble to travel here today to take part in our examination of competitiveness. I have no doubt that this will enable us to produce a very interesting report. As we were saying earlier, even though we keep harping on the same things, sometimes if you hammer a nail often enough, you end up finding some good solutions.

Thank you very much for having participated in this study.

Gentlemen, as for the rest of us, we have to proceed with the adoption of a budget concerning our decision to go to Washington D.C. from June 3 to 5 to discuss country-of-origin labelling. You have before you two draft budgets.

Before he left, Mr. Easter had proposed the $27,509 budget. I'm sure that you will have deduced that if we use that budget, members of the committee participating in the mission will have to use their points. We're entitled to points when we go to Washington. Of course that would be the most economical budget.

As for the other budget of $52,949, all the costs would be borne by the committee or the government, regardless, if we don't use our points.

It's not up to me to suggest anything in particular, but one is much more economic than the other and Mr. Easter had raised the point that the committee should approve the travel budget for $27,509.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Chair, I also support that we should use our MP points.

I believe we have four MP points to get to Washington. I would venture to guess that many of us don't go to Washington four times in any one year.

Since this will lower the burden on the committee in terms of our budget, I too am in favour of our using MP points.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

I will reread the motion.

That the committee approve a travel budget of $27,509 so that 12 members of Parliament and the necessary staff travel to Washington D.C. from June 3 to June 5, 2009 in order to meet American leaders, congressmen and stakeholders in relation to its study on country-of-origin labelling (COOL); and that the chairman submit the said budget to the Liaison Committee; and that members use their travel points.

(Motion agreed to)

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

A point of order, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

Yes.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I just want to mention, especially to my colleagues on the other side, that after our Thursday meeting we have arranged for the department to give a briefing to all members of this committee on FIMCLA. FIMCLA, if you remember, is the legislation that we're putting forward to make government loans more accessible to farmers and to cooperatives. If my colleagues are interested in attending, I wanted you to know now. Your office will be contacted as well, but I wanted to give you a heads-up to plan accordingly, if you would like to be here as part of that presentation.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

That's a point of information.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Exactly. It will be here immediately after our next meeting.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

It would be a good idea to send an e-mail to each member of the committee to invite them.