Evidence of meeting #3 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
If you look at the report, we in subcommittee thought a good way to start off would be with the program review to see what's happening and how people are perhaps being hit with some of the programs or lack of them.
The thing I would like to emphasize is that if you look at COOL and you look at the cattle industry, in my opinion that's a logical way to move into competitiveness. If we look at what's happening in COOL, we could devote two meetings to that. Regarding the cattle industry, it was my proposal--and we agreed in committee--that at the first meeting we would tackle the report put out by Darrin Qualman of the National Farmers Union. We would bring him in for 45 minutes with his PowerPoints. At the second meeting we would bring in the Cattlemen's Association, some ranchers, and others to zero in on what's happening in the cattle industry. Then we would move into a discussion on competitiveness, and then we see how we can fit in program review.
That was kind of our intent during the steering committee meeting.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I agree. I have read the report--I haven't seen the PowerPoint, to be honest, but I have talked to a number of people who have--and in order to understand that report and the depth and the numbers.... Alex has a point, that it would take that long to go through it and understand it. There would be no problem, then, in going to the hard questions. But I really do believe the analysis is very substantive and we really should give it the time it's due; you couldn't do it in 10 minutes.
I also had a question, though, on the four to six meetings on program review, and maybe Pierre can answer this. We didn't get an answer from the minister or the department the other day.
In the minister's presentation, he said the cost of production payment program is cancelled, I believe. Will that be part of this program review? Are we going to see those areas that were cancelled and where the money has supposedly gone? Has the cost of production payment program been cancelled? Does anybody know? How much money was left in it? Where did the money go? There was a commitment that the Prime Minister made the election before last that he'd go to a cost of production payment program, $100 million a year. One hundred million dollars came out in one year. Where's the other $300 million?
We know they cancelled the family farm options program, as well, in midstream. Where did that money go?
So we need some answers here. I'm wondering if we're going to have somebody come in here who can tell us. This money is announced but never comes out. Where does it go?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Easter, to answer your question on where does the thing go, I think that's up to all of you committee members when you present your witness list on where you want to go. I think that dictates it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Can the parliamentary secretary answer? Is the cost of production payment program cancelled or not? We asked the department; they didn't answer. I think the minister said it was, but I was shocked--
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you very much for the question.
Unfortunately, I wasn't here when the minister was giving his presentation. However, I think it's fair to say that if we tackle this issue, particularly considering programming, then as you quite rightly pointed out, Chair, it's for the committee to decide where they want to go with that, what questions they ask, and who they have as witnesses. So when we arrive at that agenda item, let's flesh it out.
Conservative
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Chairman, Alex, I'll be reasonable, but an organization that has more dogs and cats as members than farmers...I'm not going to give them 45 minutes. If they want to come in for 10 minutes and do a presentation, and if they want to have a volunteer presentation that committee members can go to if they have time to watch, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But we agreed to 10 minutes per presenter and I think we should stick with that.
Again, it comes back to what I talked about earlier. If you look at competitiveness, if you want to do something for farmers right now, move that higher up on your priority list. You can review the programs until the cows come home, and nothing will help farmers. You can identify issues, you can identify problems, but in the short term, those identifications will not help farmers. But if you can remove some regulations, if you can increase competitiveness, that's money that will go into farmers' pockets this summer.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Alex, you seem to know the individual. Would it be possible to have a hard copy? If it's that extensive, would it be possible to have it even a couple of weeks ahead of time?
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Chairman, you can have it today, if you want.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Okay.
The other thing is this, Mr. Chair, technically with witnesses. How long before we bring people forward would you like us to have lists submitted to you for witnesses?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Well, we obviously need to pass the report, but the sooner the better. We can discuss that. I think we should deal with the report here, but ASAP would be my suggestion. And on the report, I have three or four copies of the report in my office--I believe it's a dozen pages or more--and Alex has extra.
There was some discussion about extending presentation time by presenters. As chair, I'm going to take direction from the committee. But I do want to point out that if you break from that tradition of 10 minutes per presentation, which has been the norm, you will be setting a precedent and you will make it very tough for me, as chair, not to go back to that--meaning that if you do it for one group, you have to do it for everybody else.
I think I needed to point that out.
Mr. Atamanenko, you're next on the list.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I understand your thoughts, Randy, and I understand what you're saying, Larry. I have read the report. I have seen the presentation. It's significant. It's not somebody coming here to bash the government. It's not somebody coming here to extol the virtues of NFU. In fact, I think if there is a crisis in the cattle industry, all of us are probably to blame over the last years. It's a good point of departure. It hits on some key issues. I would anticipate that there would be some really hard questions going to this researcher. We're not here to pat him on the back.
If there are points in the report that...you know, they seem logical, but if they're not, let's flesh them out. Let's look at it. I'll make sure everybody has a copy of it as of this week.
It is legitimate. A lot of work has gone into it. Let's use this as a basis, as we move into really finding out what's going on in the cattle industry. That's my rationale for that.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I do take strong exception to Randy's comments on the National Farmers Union and cats and dogs. They are a national organization, chartered under an act of this Parliament. They have a membership list. It is an organization that is increasing in size, especially in Ontario. They're honest about their membership numbers, which some other organizations are not.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Point taken.
We are up to the time, so I'm going to call for adjournment of this meeting.
I declare the meeting adjourned for today.