Agriculture Committee on Dec. 1st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

At the same time, he has tabled it. Unless Mr. Bellavance pulls it off the table, we're in debate of it right now.

Is there further discussion?

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, we've got our witnesses here; I think we've reiterated that. They have spent time and effort to come here to talk to us. I think it's only fair that we listen to them. After that point, we can decide on this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Eyking.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we could deal with this motion really quickly. It's been talked about quite a bit. We know that all the beef industry has signed off on it. It's very straightforward. This is what the industry needs and wants, and I think we should just bring it to a question and then we can move on to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter, sorry, I didn't see you. Then I have Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Shipley.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Are we on the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay.

I speak strongly in favour of the motion, Mr. Chair. You have—as we had in a letter of October 27, 2009—all the key players in the beef industry, who came before this committee, all agreeing on the need for this $31.70 per head, which is a competitiveness gap between us and the United States. This letter—the industry totally coming together—was signed by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Renderers Association, la Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec, Levinoff-Colbex, XL Foods, Atlantic Beef Products, and Beef Value Chain Roundtable. Now, that's a pretty impressive representation of the industry. When they come together and all agree on basically what André's motion is, then I think we have to support it.

We've seen one plant in our beef industry in Ontario go under basically because of the SRM removal fees and the non-competitive position that put them in.

This is not a lot of money. For anyone going to vote against this, Mr. Chair, let me tell them that in December 2007 this standing committee, then under the chairmanship of James Bezan, made a recommendation on this very issue. I'll just quote what it said in that report of two years ago:

Finally, it has come to the Standing Committee's attention that government officials may have underestimated the cost burden associated with the specified risk material ban compliance for meat processors. Although a joint federal-provincial initiative does exist to provide assistance for processing plants to invest in new capital requirements, this program does nothing to alleviate the effects of increasing disposal costs resulting from the SRM ban, which contrary to the situation in the United States, automatically brought the value of SRM down to nothing. Therefore

--and I'll read the recommendation--

Recommendation 6: The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada review program funding available to beef producers, processors and renderers to help them with the disposal and storage costs of ruminant specified risk material.

Well, that was two years ago. Nothing has happened. As a result, we're seeing the decimation of a lot of small cow-calf operators in the country. If you go to any stockyard in western Canada or eastern Canada, you'll see pregnant animals going through for slaughter because people are leaving the industry. Our industry is non-competitive, and as I said earlier, never have we seen the beef and hog industries in as much distress, never. And never have we seen a government do less. It certainly hasn't done anything on these recommendations that are here.

For all those reasons, Mr. Chair, I think this motion is of critical importance. And we could go back to what the witnesses said before this committee on November 3, though I'll not bother going back and going through all the evidence presented. I congratulate André for bringing it forward for us to pass here. If the government could act on it, it might—it might—help in the survival of some beef producers in this country. In terms of the cost to the government, it's about $24 million per year.

We already know, as Pierre and I debated in the House last night, that the Government of Canada this year has spent $961 million, $400,000 less in business risk management, when they could have reprofiled the money to the beef and hog industry and didn't do it. So that hurt the industry. We know as well that they've lapsed, under Agriculture and Agri-Food, about $150 million under various grants and contributions on environment, food safety, competitive initiatives, etc. So $24 million, given what the government has lapsed and failed to put towards the industry, is not a lot of money.

Given that the industry is united in this request to come before this committee--the committee itself recommended action some two years ago--I would call on the committee, with the greatest urgency, to pass this motion and to get this money through government and to make them more competitive in the hands of the processing industry and primary producers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to highlight the fact that there was a motion that was approved, I believe unanimously, by the committee regarding SRM. That motion came after we had witnesses here talking about the challenges that SRM was posing to their industry. This particular motion somewhat goes against the motion that we passed previously. The motion that we passed at our last meeting, Chair, just to remind you and of course remind Canadians who might not have been following the committee back then, suggested that the government work with the industry to find suitable solutions to these challenges that are faced by the beef industry with respect to SRM.

The very next motion we have now actually proposes a solution. No study took place, not yet. The dialogue that we were hoping to have during the last meeting, of course, is not taking place because André has kindly provided the solution. This is the solution. I would have to raise a question about this being the solution, because I think there are other things that might better serve the beef industry. Even Mr. Easter said in his words just a few moments ago that this might--Chair, it might--help the beef farmers. I don't think we should be working with speculative solutions and the word “might”. I think we need to find solutions that will help them. I think more time is needed to consult with the industry in order to find out what will help them.

Chair, I want to put in front of you an excellent example. It's a timely example. On the pork issue, the first solution put forward regarding the pork crisis was a per head payment. It was not workable. Trade sanctions could have been levied on that. A tremendous amount of work was done with the industry, Chair, by our government and with the Canada Pork Council. Now the programs that are being delivered are far better than a per head payment would have been.

So that initial solution, Chair, what was thought to be the solution at the time, was not the solution at all.

I think we're going down the same road, where Mr. Bellavance and his colleagues on the opposition side feel that this is the solution. There's no room here for expanding upon this. We heard from some witnesses. Bang, they have all the answers, let's vote on this. That's what they want. I'm saying no. What we actually approved unanimously at the last committee was no, let's work together, let's work with industry, let's investigate solutions that will help, not might help, the industry.

The second thing, Chair, is that the last time the Liberal government did something like this was during the BSE crisis, and it was a complete fiasco. Even they admit it was a big fiasco. The money went to the wrong people, to the wrong players. They themselves were worried about how they had mismanaged the program, Chair. These types of things need to be taken into consideration. Who needs to be targeted in this type of government programming? Where should the money go? How should the money be delivered? Well, right now we're just being given a very concise, narrow answer with no discussion amongst ourselves and no discussion with industry. So I think this is very inappropriate.

I'll go back to the pork issue, Chair. There are other things that are helping our pork industry, like we have our programs to help the pork industry, to deliver money. As I announced during question period, Chair, thanks to the great work of our government and the Prime Minister, who is now in China, effectively immediately, China has agreed to lift the ban on all imports of pork products into China from Canada. This is great news for pork producers, who now have renewed access to a $50-million-a-year market. This is good news. It's part of the solution for the pork sector. It's not the solution; it's part of the solution. That's my concern with this motion, Chair.

This is, to them, the solution. No, we should be working on this a little bit more. We should be putting more time and effort into this, and we should respect the motion that we debated and passed at our last meeting.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Shipley is next, but right now he's....

Go ahead, Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If anything, Mr. Chair, I think we heard the sense of urgency associated with the request by the producers and processors who appeared before us. I think it's with that same sense of urgency that we have to address this motion.

There's nothing in the motion that states that it has to be that amount of money on an ongoing basis. We considered other options at that meeting, including the creation—I think everybody nodded their heads in agreement—of cogeneration plants beside processing plants so that we could use the SRMs for other purposes. We know that it will take a long time.

In the meantime, while there is merit in what Mr. Lemieux said about opening markets, we also know that it will take a long time to open those markets. If the government is making efforts to open markets for beef producers, that's a good thing. But my suspicion is that if it takes as long to open more markets for beef as it has for pork, we will lose a lot of livelihoods in the beef industry.

Mr. Chair, you yourself saw the facial expressions of people who were losing their livelihoods when they appeared before this committee. I think it is the intent of Mr. Bellavance's motion that this urgent situation be addressed now rather than later. It doesn't supersede the opportunity for any committee to come together and consider other solutions in the meantime.

I'm not in favour of paying $31.70 per head on an ongoing, indefinite basis any more than the government is. Having said that, I think at this point in time that urgency has to be addressed. This is a wonderful stopgap measure, Mr. Chair, and I would hope that people would see it as that, as a stopgap, temporary measure, until those other solutions are developed.

Frankly, when it comes to deploying the money properly, I've heard, for as long I've been here--that's a year--how wonderful this government is at deploying money and making sure it gets into the right hands.

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

It's true.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Well, that's what you've been telling me, so you shouldn't be afraid. You should not be afraid of finding ways and means to get that money into the right people's hands so that it's not given to the wrong people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Back before Mr. Easter was on, I guess your name was on there, Mr. Bellavance. I apologize; I didn't see it there. I'll go to you now.

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

Mr. Lemieux talks about my solution, but it actually is not my solution. It is the industry's solution. It is what they have asked us for. I understand that Mr. Lemieux has not been a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food as long as some of the members around the table here. But the discussions on SRM are nothing new. This was not done off the top of our heads after the testimony of a few witnesses that we heard in the last session. We have been discussing this for years and the people in the industry have done serious work in order to arrive at serious solutions.

So, as I have always said, Mr. Lemieux's motion is like apple pie; you cannot be against it. Yes, the government should be talking with industry. But, to me, that is wasting this industry's time, or, at least, more politely, stalling for time. We can talk and talk and form committees. But we do not need to do that any more. We have heard so much testimony, we have read so many careful studies showing that there is a serious problem. Basically, the Americans do not have the same SRM standards as we do.

This did not come from the Bloc Québécois. The Canadian Meat Council study is very serious about the competitiveness gap of $31.70 per head. Of course, the committee does not give out money. We just make recommendations to the government. Doing so does not put us in any danger, nor does it stop the government from continuing its discussions with the industry.

Mr. Chair, of course I did not want to hold up the committee's work by introducing this motion at the beginning of the meeting. But it is difficult to introduce motions this session. I do not know how many of my motions have been delayed or postponed. The list goes on and on. This situation is urgent because the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec is holding its convention in Quebec City as we speak. One of the first items of business that they were discussing as the convention opened today was about SRM. So I feel there is some urgency in acting quickly.

I apologize to the witnesses, of course. But the quickest way to get to their testimony on GMOs is to move to a vote immediately. Everyone has been able to express their opinion. If people are against, that is their right. They can vote against it, and we are done. We move to the next item. That is the quickest solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Excellent.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize. I had a personal call that I had to take. I apologize for that.

In terms of this, Mr. Eyking and Mr. Easter have said that it's not very much money; they need it, they want it, we should give it to them. I think if they went back in history, they would find that has likely been said a number of times. As a government, they took some responsibility in terms of fiscal responsibility of this. When somebody comes along to hand out—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I believe we balanced the books. I believe you guys have a deficit. Is that correct?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

So at the end of the day, I believe this particular motion, first of all, only speaks to one part of it. It only talks about those over 30 months. I think the discussion we've had with the industry is that it's not just about those over 30 months. It's actually about the livestock industry itself, not just in terms of the SRMs—that's a component of it—but other issues in terms of the processors.

Quite honestly, I'm still not understanding, and I don't know if everyone would be. If you do, maybe you could help me, André, to understand how giving the $31.70 per head was actually not going to the producers. I'm just trying to understand, and maybe you can help me.

I know your urgency, I think, because there's an annual meeting on, but the urgency.... Quite honestly, the last time that happened, it went to the packers. The industry never got the money. I agree that we've got a group of industry people, commodity groups, signed on, which also includes the slaughter capacity group. But in the midst of an advisory committee that is being set up, made up of industry and processors.... It's still just being put together and will be coming out. I think it's a little premature to be doing it. It's $31.70 per head, not addressing the full scope of what the competitive issues are about.

I just have a little trouble, Mr. Chairman, addressing that at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair, and gentlemen.

I guess I'm just going to say that I'm a little concerned. I think this motion is very premature to bring forward until we've had a real chance to explore what exactly is going to happen here.

I actually asked some of the guys back in my riding last week what they thought of giving $31.70 a head to the packers. The first thing they came back to us with was, “You're going to give money to packing plants?”

Keep in mind that there's been $50 million available for slaughtering capacity to make improvements and gain efficiencies in dealing with SRMs and other things in their plants. We've done that for them. I think the last thing we want to do is take a company like Cargill, for example, and give them an extra $8 million, $10 million, $15 million. That's who will get the money.

I know Mr. Easter said the farmers need it, but the reality is that this doesn't go to the farmers. This money will actually end up in the packing plants. It'll end up being utilized for their efficiencies or needs. It will not get passed on to farmers. I think the history has shown, in BSE, that programs like this that we think will funnel through the packing plants to farmers just did not happen or did not work. I can't see anything that has structurally changed in that scenario that would make me believe this would happen in this case.

The other thing I'm curious about is that they were asking for 30 months, I understand, for the $31.70. What then, after 30 months? There has been no proposal, there has been no suggestion saying that after the 30 months we'll be at point Y or Z, and then we can deal with the market as the market delivers its results. I have that question.

Then we also have to talk about countervailability. Does it shut off markets? We haven't explored that. Is there actually a problem here, possibly, that if we do this, all of a sudden we have more markets shut down on us, which creates that domino effect that makes it harder and harder on our producers?

My goal is to help farmers, just like everybody else around this committee table. I believe everybody here is looking after their farmers, and that's what they want. I understand the industry and their ask, because they're trying to figure out a quick way to get results for farmers, but I think we actually have to go back and talk to some of our farmers a little bit more and find out exactly how we can best do that.

Actually, is the SRM side of this an issue that farmers really think is a...? Well, I think they think it's an issue. I think they recognize it's an issue, I won't say that. But how does the funding flow?

The other thing we need to look at as a government is if we have the proper regulations in place. Do we have the proper procedures in place for dealing with SRMs? Maybe we have to tweak that a little bit more too.

Mr. Bellavance, I can't support it because of that, because I think it's premature. I want to see any benefits actually get down to the farmers, and I just don't see that happening in this case. So I think we should take a step back and see if there's a better way of doing this that actually gets the results we want to see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

I made a resolution a week or so ago to keep my emotions in check when I express anger, and I'll just tell you I'm angry that we couldn't have waited an hour to start debating this and to make a decision on whether we should do the motion or the report.

We have very important witnesses here who have come a long way. They have come a long way to share their expertise on a topic that we've just started to discuss and is to be debated in our country, while we're going back and forth getting comments on the record to please those people we represent.

I think it's inappropriate at this time, and Chair, I'd ask you to show some leadership and at least guarantee these folks that they will have an hour of our time whenever we finish this so that they don't go home having come here for just 20 minutes. That's all I'm going to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Look, Mr. Atamanenko, I resent the fact about leadership. You could show some leadership. If you want to move a motion that we suspend debate on this motion and hear witnesses, then so be it, but I can't make motions from the chair.