Agriculture Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

--but they're attacking me personally. It's wrong and it's an absolute lie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Well, you two take that up with each other.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's an absolute lie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Atamanenko, and then Mr. Easter.

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

Well, first of all, I think the motion just recommends to the minister a specific sum. In my opinion, all it does is reinforce the good motion that we had a little while ago and that we all passed.

I can't quite understand why anybody here would be opposed. Why would we oppose $31.70 going to help the industry, which will filter down to the producer? I mean, they can always refuse it.

I understand that when you're in government there often may be a conflict between individual members and the minister's office, but I just don't quite understand why there's even a debate on this. We put it forward and the government rejects it or not. Maybe it comes up with a different proposal or moves it forward. At least it's there and on the record, showing that we're reflecting the opinion of people out in the field. I think we could be voting on this motion and getting on with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree that this motion should be debated by the committee. The argument by the parliamentary secretary that there was a motion unanimously agreed to is all well and good. We did agree that the government should look at this matter and we as a committee should investigate it further.

I really think, though, in truth, that it was a motion to cover for the government's failure, really, to deal with this issue. As I said earlier, Chair, we passed a recommendation some two years ago, two years ago in December, for the government to deal with this SRM removal. They've failed to do so. Contrary to what some members on the other side said, that they are listening to farmers, they're just proving their point today that they haven't done so.

I believe many people sat around this room the day the industry was here. It was unique to have the total industry come together and agree on a proposal. By the total industry, I also mean the producers. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the Canadian Meat Council were there, and the processing industry as well.

So for them to come together and agree, I think we have an obligation, which is just a simple matter. I really can't understand why the government now has, at about four meetings, including a filibuster at one, refused to deal with this motion that witnesses wanted put forward. André, to his credit, has put forward this motion, so I think we have an obligation to lift it off the table, deal with it, and make a recommendation to government on something specific. We're not saying that's all they need to do. They need to do much more. But this is one thing they could do at the next cabinet meeting and get that money out there and make our industry at least a little bit more competitive with the United States. It only makes sense.

What doesn't make sense are the tactics...government members, for whatever reason--I don't know--are refusing to meet the needs of the farm production sector.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I don't think it's as cut and dried as the opposition is making it. In fact, Mr. Laurent Pellerin was in front of us and he said:

As a farmer, I don't think we are expecting return on this $31.70, especially on the cow-calf and finished beef.

This is testimony that came from the committee, and I think there are a range of solutions.

I just want to read into the record what it was that we passed right after our witnesses came. Mr. Easter doesn't appreciate the fact that the motion I put forward was a direct result of having heard these witnesses, actually having listened to them.

For example, my motion said:

That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, after hearing witness testimony concerning specified risk material, would like to encourage the government to work with industry to find solutions to existing irritants.

I'll have to bring up a point here. The last time the Liberal government moved money towards cattle producers, it was a fiasco, a complete fiasco. Even they had to conduct a study, or not even a study, because they didn't even know where the money went. They had to actually review all of their processes and procedures to figure out where the money went. What they realized was that the money went to the wrong place. The money did not arrive--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On a point of order, Chair, I don't know why these members want to put so much misinformation on the table. The fact of the matter is that this committee looked at that missing $550 million—not this committee under your chairmanship but under a previous chair; I believe it was two chairs ago. Mr. Ritz, the current minister, was chair when we looked at where that money went. We came to the understanding that basically the packing industry was where that $550 million went, one program out of eleven. It wasn't the last program, it was the first program, and there were some lessons learned. The packing industry, by reducing prices, managed to pocket much of that $550 million. That's what we concluded. But when we asked for the packing industry to be brought before Parliament, who opposed it? It was Gerry Ritz, the current minister. He didn't allow Parliament to go after the packing industry the way we should have.

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

Thanks, Mr. Easter. That wasn't really a point of order. But the point I wanted to make was that the money went to the wrong place, and Mr. Easter just admitted it. It's a wonderful program. But the money went to the wrong people, to the wrong portion of the beef sector. This motion may very well repeat the same error, and that's my concern with it.

The motion that I put forward encourages the government to work with industry to find solutions to existing irritants. Clearly, the SRM is an irritant. We know that. But we have no call to jump up and claim we have a solution that we're ready to report to the House. We've listened to only one set of witnesses. When the Liberals were the government, their money went to the wrong people. So I don't think they're on solid ground when it comes to talking about how best to serve the agricultural sector or the beef sector.

That's my concern with debating this motion again—we've already discussed it and tabled it as a committee. It came to a vote. The majority of MPs decided to table the motion, which means to put it aside. We're no longer going to discuss it, at least not right now. We have other things to do.

I mentioned one of them earlier in this meeting—we need to review our report. But the opposition is very bullheaded in this matter. Whatever we say or however we appeal to them, they're a unified block. They spoke earlier about democracy, yet they want to limit debate on the motions. That's what they were proposing; I think Mr. Eyking was proposing this. I think we should leave this motion off to the side and move ahead with our report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I have problems with bringing this motion forward, much as my colleagues do. I'll try to explain my position to my colleagues across the floor. Mr. Lemieux's motion basically suggested—and we agreed unanimously—that we look at options for dealing with SRMs. When we haven't done that, it's hard to come back next week and tell the minister what he has to do. We've heard one set of witnesses on SRMs, but we have not talked to a lot of other people in the industry. We talked about this and we passed Mr. Lemieux's motion, unanimously.

I want to point out some facts. There are some things going on right now that address this question. There is a $50 million fund to help our slaughter facilities. I understand that Keystone and Levinoff each got $10 million. I assume that some of that money is going towards determining how to go about removing the SRM material on the production floor.

I'd like to see what happens there. We're also looking at regulatory solutions on SRMs. One thing we have to be concerned about is this thirty million-some-odd dollars that Mr. Bellavance wants to give Cargill and Excel. Does Cargill need another $10 million from the government? Does Excel need millions more from the government? No, and I think my producers back home would say the same if I asked them that. They all remember the BSE scandal. They all remember how that money went straight to the packing plants—the producers didn't benefit from it. Are we now going to make a recommendation that the minister give the packers more?

I'm wondering if we have given this enough time. Have we given Mr. Lemieux's motion enough time? Have we given this $50 million fund enough time to show results? Are we going to put forward this motion? Let's say the government was to go ahead with this. We're going to give Levinoff $10 million and then give them a few million more? Are we going to do the same for Cargill? Does that make a lot of sense? That's the question I have for the colleagues across the floor.

We all want to help farmers; I believe that. I look across the floor and I know you guys want to help farmers and you're looking at the best way to do it. It's not always simple. It's not always quick and easy. If we do this and end up with a countervail, all the work we've done to open up markets would get shut down. These packing plants would shut down. Our beef industry would be in worse shape than it is today. Do we want to do something that creates that type of scenario? No, I don't think so.

I agree with Mr. Lemieux—let's back off on this motion. Let's deal with Mr. Lemieux's motion that we have in front of us. I think it's adequate. It makes recommendations to the minister to look at it. Let's see what kinds of options they come up with besides what they've already done. Let's give it a little time and see how it looks down the road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback. I'm going to call the question.

Yes.

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

Mr. Chair, I do think... I'll let Mr. Easter comment quickly, but I did misspeak and I would like to apologize to Mr. Easter. I don't have any facts as to whether or not Mr. Easter is in his riding or in P.E.I. per se, so I would like to correct the record on that. Mr. Easter is right.

I do, however, have Mr. Easter's own words that he's on a silence strike and is no longer going to speak up on behalf of Canadian agriculture. If they're not going to put their neck on the line for him, he's not going to put his neck on the line for them.

At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that the point of this is that the members on this side will continue to defend our cow-calf producers, our pork producers, and the men and women we saw here in the room last week.

And they wonder why we won't vote for this motion. We are not going to vote for another per head payment. Mr. Easter knows.

Mr. Easter, answer this question in your point of order: where is most of the money going to go if you do a per head payment? It's going to go to the slaughterhouse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. You clarified some information Mr. Easter asked, so we're going to go back...

Is it a point of order?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, it is a point of order. Mr. Storseth is talking about an interview. I will state exactly what's in that interview and explain the background, just so--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I don't think we need any explanation. I don't think it's--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

This is what it says in the interview.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I've read it before and I presume--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

He tabled that, Mr. Chair, and you allowed him to table it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No, I didn't.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, you did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

He never tabled anything, to my knowledge.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Well, he stated it, and I will state what it says in the article. It says:

I'm not asking questions in defence of the industry in the face of a do-nothing government if agriculture leaders aren't prepared to speak up and take the government on.

The reason I've said that, Mr. Chair, is because--