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.