Evidence of meeting #4 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 meeting.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Fair enough.

I have Mr. Hoback, and then Mr. Atamanenko.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Chair, I have two points to make.

André brought up other business that he'd like to see added on here. I have other business I'd like to see on here too. I'd like to see the committee travel to western Canada to meet with representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board and other professionals to investigate the substantial losses in commodity trades over the past two years. I'd like to see that added to the list, for sure.

The second thing I'd like to point out here is that when we left this meeting, we talked about the priority of our meetings, and I believe Mr. Storseth was trying to move forward some priorities. One was that we move forward the cattle industry, which has some major things going on right now, as a priority, instead of where it's at. And maybe COOL could fall under those two cattle meetings. Perhaps we could move that forward on the agenda at a higher priority and then work our way back through it and try to coordinate Mr. Atamanenko's priority in there too.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Mr. Atamanenko.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

I don't think there's anything stopping us from adopting the agenda that we set in the steering committee. Basically, that's what we've decided.

Once we get a copy of my breakdown--all it does is break things down by date--we can look at it and see where we can move things up or down, and add the labelling. That would be a good start. These dates have been worked out with holidays and things. So I suggest that we could probably just adopt the report and then move on. By that time, we should have a copy of this, and we can move on and see how this fits in. We could do it quickly.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

We have the first report in front of us. Let's get on to it.

There's one thing I should bring up. You may all be aware of it or you may not. Since we had our subcommittee meeting, some things in the U.S. regarding country of origin labelling have changed. They initially told us they were going to combine rules B and C, which would deal with the biggest part of the segregation part of it. Now that's not the case, after the comments from Secretary Vilsack last Friday.

The reason I'm bringing that up is that you may want to put a higher priority on the country of origin labelling. I just throw that out there. The rules now are different. We thought a lot of this had been dealt with, but it's actually right back where it started.

Mr. Easter.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

On that point, I do think the cattle industry, both cattle and pork really, needs to be moved up considerably. That industry is in real crisis. The changes that we thought would be in the country of origin labelling to accommodate us are not there to the same extent we thought they would. The cattle industry's in trouble everywhere across the country. What people are saying, especially in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, is that the breeding cow herd is being sold off at historically high levels. This means that three years from now we're not going to have the breeding stock we require in the industry. So that's a really serious issue, and I do think we need to deal with it as soon as we can.

I have one other point, but not on that. When I went through the transcripts of the minister and department's appearance before the committee, there still remains, I think, a lot of confusion—or there certainly is in my mind—on where the programs are really at. He said in his testimony that the cost of production program has gone. Well, where has that money gone?

We need some answers on where the departmental spending is at. We've said that we do not believe there's been enough stimulus in agriculture in this budget, but we still don't even know, given the current programming of the department, the cost of production. Where has that money gone? Where is it being applied? We know AgriInvest isn't $500 million, but $190 million. Where did the rest of that money that was supposed to be targeted go?

So we do need some further answers from the department, whether it's in a briefing or a hearing, or whatever, but there are some questions that we need answered yet.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Well, Mr. Easter, you're right. It suggests.... And depending again on what happens with the report in front of us, we have part of this recommendation from the subcommittee that deals with program review and the cattle industry in general, so I think I can say that would be the time to do it. If you want to call somebody from the department, or wherever, the committee has that option.

Mr. Atamanenko.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

I'm just wondering how long it's going to take to get those photocopies of my document, so we can take a look at it.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I guess we have it here.

But we're discussing the report, Alex.

February 24th, 2009 / 11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to support Alex on this. I've seen what he has done. It would actually expedite this, I think. He's taken the time to lay out the actual dates.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Okay, I need this feedback from the committee. If you want it circulated, I'll have the clerk circulate it right now.

Mr. Lemieux.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

What I'd like to do is propose an amendment to the first report.

The amendment would be that we remove the two proposed meetings on listeriosis. Just strike that line from the first report. We don't need to have two meetings on listeriosis when we've already struck a subcommittee on food safety. We now know that the subcommittee will be staffed by seven MPs, and there'll be duplication of effort otherwise.

That's my amendment.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Okay. It's pretty straightforward.

You've heard the motion. Is there discussion on it?

Mr. Bellavance.

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I understand what Pierre means, but do we really have to amend all that? Could we not just discuss our priorities today and leave the subject of listeriosis to the subcommittee? Do we really have to present an amendment every time we want to make a change? I simply want to make our job easier. It seems to me that we could discuss this and decide to deal with such and such a subject.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Well—

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

It is still a tentative schedule. Do we really need to amend each point?

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I guess it can be removed or not be removed in one of two ways, either by general consensus around the table and then being noted in the minutes, or by a motion. But I have a motion in front of me, and as chair, I have to deal with it unless it's withdrawn.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Chair, I can answer just a little bit about that.

There are two ways we can proceed. Number one is that we can work with the first report. We can accept it as a committee or we can modify it and accept it as a committee. That's one way to do it. The very straightforward way to do it is to delete the items we don't want, add items we do want, and vote on it. The other way is just to have general discussion, which we can have too.

With my engineering background, I'm just a little more categorical: if we don't want that in the first report and we eventually want to adopt the first report, let's strike it off then. If someone else wants to table a motion to add something to the report, then let's add it, let's debate it, and let's figure out where it fits in the list so we don't go round and round having general discussion but no decision at the end.

I'll leave it to your discretion, Chair, on how you would like to proceed.

I have the motion on the floor right now. If you would rather go with general discussion, I can withdraw that motion. If you want us to vote on amendments so that we're either adding or removing or changing the priority of items in the first report, I'm all right with that too. You just let me know.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

The chair doesn't have a preference one way or the other, except I'd like to get some production done if we can deal with that one.

Mr. Easter, do you have a comment?

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Pierre, it would be perhaps better if you could withdraw the motion. Let's take the schedule Alex has set out here, juggle it around, and then move it as a motion at the end. We'd accomplish more that way, Mr. Chair, if I could say so.

My own view on what Alex has here is that I really do believe we need to move the cattle industry up. I'm sure the Canadian Cattlemen's Association could be here by Thursday. I know they have great concerns. I don't know whether we can invite witnesses from the U.S. embassy or not, but we should have an explanation from the United States' side on what they're doing with COOL and tell them that, as a parliamentary committee, we're damned well not pleased.

I would suggest moving the cattle industry and COOL up together a little further and then preparing witnesses for program review.

The other point I would suggest—and I agree with what André said earlier on product of Canada labelling—is that I would like to see it up the list considerably. I am getting a lot of calls in my riding from people who produce a product of Canada but do not now meet the identity criteria because the Prime Minister went too far with the 98%. The Prime Minister overruled what this committee recommended, and now we have another problem. So we have to sort this out for those who are actually providing a product of Canada but can't call it such—they have boxes made and so on.

So I'd move it up.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Okay, Mr. Easter.

To move the cattle industry and COOL up--that is on the report and that can happen with general discussion. To add in the product of Canada labelling, we'd probably have to have a motion from here, because that wasn't put on there at the subcommittee.

Is the motion withdrawn, Mr. Lemieux, or not?

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I can withdraw it. I withdraw the motion. We can have this discussion.

(Motion withdrawn)

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

In Mr. Easter's comments he is suggesting we move the cattle industry and COOL, combined, up in the list. Is there discussion on that?

Mr. Hoback, then Mr. Shipley.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Mr. Chair, I realize I was on the list 15 minutes ago, and I was just complaining that the chair is biased against me for some reason.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Mr. Storseth, what happened is that you had spoken on what was a point of order and your name got stroked off on that. I apologize. I'll go to you right after Mr. Hoback.