Agriculture Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're now at this motion for discussion, and quite honestly I'm not sure why we're here. The motion that had come forward actually...

We had a great discussion last week when the Outstanding Young Farmers were here, and it wasn't political. They were young farmers, and we had a number of them, including the acting chair at that time, who was a past nominee of that program. Randy Hoback was here also, and we had a great respect for them. Quite honestly, it was pretty refreshing to listen to these innovative young people who are going through some pretty tough struggles within their industry.

Some of them, particularly the ones in potatoes right now, are doing well. Some of the others in supply management are doing well. Over the last two or three years, some of our grains and oilseeds have done all right, but we have factors within our industry that are hurting, and I never heard any of them say that one solution was going to fix it for us. In fact, what I heard was quite the opposite. Just handing out dollars--and it would be interesting to go back and look at the blues on that--isn't the solution to what we have to do to be successful beginning farmers. Not all of them are really young, but many of them are beginning farmers.

In fact, the couple who led the delegation in terms of the presentation were in the pork industry. They talked about the ability to compete in the pork industry and the ability to level the playing field. One of the issues they talked about concerned competitiveness in the pork industry, for example.

I have a motion coming forward in terms of being competitive. In the pork industry there is a product that is used by our competitors in the United States that our producers in Canada can't use. What's the issue? It's a regulatory licensing issue, and one of the things the farmers continually ask is what we can do to level the playing field.

It is not the one issue of $31.70 per head. This is about making it so they can be competitive. They know they're good. They told us that. They know they are good farmers. They know they are efficient farmers. They know their productivity is as good as anyone else's around the world, particularly in comparison to the productivity of our major competitors, but we have some regulatory issues that are a hindrance to them.

SRMs are, quite honestly, one of those issues. COOL is one of those issues. The Canadian dollar, which fluctuates, is one of those. Some of those irritants we can actually try to do something about; some of them, such as the issue of the Canadian dollar, are bigger issues, but when we get to the SRMs--and I've talked to beef producers--there are some issues we've stepped into in terms of the industry and in terms of government that have been a disadvantage to us in terms of competition and competitiveness with our neighbours. Those are basically regulatory issues.

We have to see what we are doing with our money when we put $50 million towards the improvement of slaughter facilities and put out money to the industries mentioned by my colleague, including the $10 million that went to Keystone and the $10 million that went to Levinoff-Colbex. In terms of this motion, we're talking of putting most of our money into two or three major packers. If they're going to be using money that we have put forward, what is it being used for? Is it being used to advance the technology and advance the ability to remove SRMs in a more competitive and more environmentally sound way?

One of the things we have in our regulations is that we can't even process SRMs for use as fertilizer. That becomes a disadvantage to us in terms of some of our competitors.

Why is that? It's a regulatory issue, but it's a big issue.

My illustration will always be that we need to look at solutions that represent the motion that was passed. I believe everybody did that in good faith, because that's what we have to look at. But this motion basically doesn't talk about that. It talks about the immediate implementation of an assistance program for the cattle industry to help it cover the $31.70 cost per head, which represents the competitive gap between the U.S. and Canada with SRMs. That sounds really good. Maybe that is the number, but it isn't the cause or remedy to that issue. It can't be dealt with.

In a complex issue like SRMs, where we have standards, and competition from exporters that come into Canada and for those of us who are exporting into other countries, that is not the solution without having a full breadth of discussions about what we can do to actually... This is a one-shot $31.70. So a month from now, when it hasn't solved the financial issue, they'll come back and we'll have gone through that $31.70, which I think is $23 million.

We made an allocation of $50 million earlier on slaughter capacity and innovation to help the slaughter companies, the packers, be more effective in dealing with some of these issues. Then they'll come back and say it's actually another $23.50 or something. I don't know. But that's what happens when you just try to hand dollars off--except you'll likely be into a countervail and all the money that actually goes out will be wasted.

I really appreciate what André is trying to do in his motion. I don't discredit him at all for what he is trying to do in listening to some of his producers or an organization. But what we have in front of us is one single solution--a “one-shot give me the cheque” that won't actually go to the producers; it will go to the packers. There is absolutely no guarantee that this money will ever get down to the producers. We should learn from experience where that did not work in the last term around BSE.

André, I understand and appreciate very much your integrity in wanting to move ahead and do for the beef producers what all of us want to do. I just can't support the approach of getting one figure out to them--$31.70--without having a complex issue dealt with, just having a one-figure cost per head, which will put us in a countervail.

In fairness to all the producers that we would actually--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

A point of order, Mr. Eyking.

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

Mr. Shipley mentions countervail, and I can't see that happening. Right now the United States is paying all the abattoirs that amount of money. I can't see a countervail coming from them, because they have that program in place.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

It wasn't a point of order in the first place.

The fact of the matter is that in 1994 the Liberal government signed off allowing the disparity in the subsidization between the European Union, the Americans, and our government. That is the real atrocity we've been fighting for the last 25 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Shipley.

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

I have a number of producers telling me that the Americans do it. Well, quite honestly they do. They had it grandfathered in. They have the ability to do it without countervail. We have provinces that can do those dollar-a-head per payments and not likely be at risk of a countervail because it's a national factor. But that was given away. The Americans can always do a per-head, per-acre, per-bushel... They have the flexibility that Canada gave away in 1994.

I didn't know the date, but I appreciate your accuracy.

I would leave it, André, with that part. I don't want to take away your credibility in what you're trying to do, but it's just not a one-solution fix.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary try to outline his disappointment with the opposition members, but I think the farm community should be extremely disappointed in the government members.

In terms of this motion of André's, we're not proposing it as a single solution. We're proposing it as something the government could do with some immediacy. It would require immediate action, and it could be done at cabinet prior to Christmas. If the processing industry were to pass all of those costs down to industry, all those savings down to the producer, it would make a difference in the producer's bottom line. The bottom line for me is that it's something the government could do before Christmas.

The motion by the parliamentary secretary is so much of what the government has been doing for years, which is talking a good line but virtually doing nothing.

I want to go through a few of those points. The parliamentary secretary's motion is that this committee recommends that the government investigate these issues and basically do something. That is the bottom line.

Mr. Chair, let's look at the record. Does everyone remember during the last election campaign that the current government promised a 2¢-a-litre reduction in fuel for the farm community? Did we see it?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It was in your platform. You promised it, but we haven't seen it. We haven't seen that reduction.

The Prime Minister himself committed to a cost of production at $100 million a year for farmers, and he broke his word. It was in the last budget. He broke his word. Not a dime went to producers and the cost of production no longer exists.

Let's look at AgriFlexibility. I believe the Minister of Agriculture said at a debate we were at that he would go along with the AgriFlexibility proposal of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. But when it came to getting the AgriFlexibility money out there, it is not what the federation asked for at all; it's a slush fund without flexibility.

I believe the current government also said it would scrap CAIS. All they did was change the name and replace it with AgriStability.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we need to stick to the facts here. Maybe it would be better if I corrected all the facts at the end, but it is very egregious that all he says we did was to replace it with AgriStability. There are four components to this, things that the agriculture community and farmers asked for. Mr. Easter is even on the record saying that some of them are--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Very few that are raised around this table ever are, Mr. Easter, and I don't cut them off.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Earlier, Randy tabled an article by Kevin Hursh.

I'll read what Kevin Hursh said in an article in the The StarPhoenix. I quote:

Despite what the feds say, the farm support program known as AgriStability is of limited benefit to cattle producers. It's based on historical margins and after years of trouble in the beef industry, those reference margins have been squashed.

That's what Kevin Hursh had to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

The bells are starting.

You have one minute, and then I'm going to cut it off.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Let's look at what Mr. Breitkreuz had to say in a letter to the minister. He said:

Unfortunately, this has gone on so long that the five-year formula used to calculate AgriStability payments no longer has a high value to pull up average costs. AgriStability is of little benefit to our cattle producers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Chair, I'll call the question for the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No, the bells are ringing.

The meeting is adjourned until Thursday.