Evidence of meeting #7 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 industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I also believe that motion can come from anybody. This is now the committee's motion. This is no longer an individual member's motion.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. That's why it was humourous to hear Mr. Easter trying to talk about the other motion that's out there. He could have brought it forward any time he wanted, if he so chose, but he clearly doesn't want to because he doesn't want to have the discussion on that particular aspect of the contingency fund.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to move that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food call before it the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to examine and answer questions regarding the potato cyst nematode and the effect that regulations have had on potato farmers who have suffered severe losses and to discuss specifically farms that have been quarantined and/or had their operations closed due to inadequate sampling.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
You've heard the motion.
Mr. Bellavance, you're first on the list.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could discuss Mr. Storseth's and my motion at the same time. I agree with his motion. Mine is similar, it raises the same problem, but Mr. Storseth is not as specific with respect to the Saint-Amable producers. I could table an amendment to his motion in order to combine the two, I do not have a problem with that. I am submitting that for your consideration. I also agree with discussing both motions separately, but I think that both should be discussed at the same committee meeting because the same laws are concerned.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Again, I'm at your direction. I'd just point out that you can ask Mr. Storseth if he wants to do a friendly amendment. The other way is to propose an amendment.
Mr. Storseth.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have no problem with Mr. Bellavance's motion or finding a way that we can bring them both together. I agree it's duplicitous to have the CFIA come here to talk on both motions.
My issue, André, is very much like yours. It's to deal with specifics. I'll be asking specifics about some Alberta cases that have happened, but that's not to preclude you from talking about anything else. So I have no problem if we can find a way to combine the two or even just let CFIA know that they'll be asked a broad range of questions on the issue.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
If we have agreement, rather than take the time to reword the motion, let's just deal with both of them at the same time. Is that okay?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
It may be easier, Mr. Chair, if André agrees.... My motion is a little broader; it doesn't talk about one specific region. I think we could just move forward with my motion, with the committee proceedings recording that we understand and agree that we're going to be talking about both issues. And the clerk should let CFIA know that they'll be expected to be able to answer on a range of issues in respect to potato cyst nematode.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
No, I do not want to withdraw my motion because I want to preserve... I understand what Mr. Storseth is saying, that his in fact is broader. However, as I stated, I tabled my motion because I felt that his was not specific enough with respect to the problem being experienced in Saint-Amable. We can discuss each of these motions separately, I do not have a problem with that, but my suggestion is that we do it at the same meeting, when we have witnesses.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay. That's good.
I have Mr. Easter first, then Mr. Atamanenko.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, if we pass both motions, I think the clerk can invite them in on both subjects. We'd be fine.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Very good. And I think we have agreement from Mr. Bellavance.
Mr. Atamanenko.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Then, if there's no further debate, I'll call the question on Mr. Storseth's motion.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
The next motion we have, going in order, is not that particular one, Mr. Bellavance, but it is one of your motions. Do you want to turn them...?
You can move your motion on the nematodes, then. Would you read it into the record?
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Yes. It reads as follows:
That the committee invite the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to appear with regard to the appearance of the golden nematode in the Saint-Amable region, and that it also invite affected farmers or their representatives in order to develop solutions to compensate them and rehabilitate the infested farm lands.
Mr. Chairman, this was a problem and the producers are still raising their claims. The issue has not been dealt with and we would like the agency to come and tell us what the situation is.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Is there any debate on the motion?
I'll call the question.
(Motion agreed to)
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Yes. It reads as follows:
That the committee study the repercussions of the government's decision to set the standard for using the "Produce of Canada" claim at 98%.
I know that the committee undertook a very interesting study on this. As I was saying the other day, I do not want to start the discussion all over again and redo the whole study. However, it would be useful to hear the witnesses on the consequences of the government's decision to set the standard at 98%, when the committee had suggested an 85% standard for Canadian products. We do not need to spend five or six meetings on this but I think it would be important, given that the standard has just been set, to ask processors, producers and the industry what the decision's effect is.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I think it's important. As an example, I just met with the president of the Canadian Vintners Association. According to him, the way it stands now, with 98%, it could be devastating to the reputation of our Canadian wine industry because of.... I won't go into details, but some of you may have met with them because of the other processing.
I think we need to get some examples, have some people in to see whether we can change this a bit and modify it to conform more with what the committee did. I think it's a very important motion and something for us to do.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I would agree as well, Mr. Chair. I think we brought this up at a previous time. We talked with a number of processors who are trying to sell what is clearly a Canadian product, but because the Prime Minister went over and above what the committee recommended, it has cost what I think are consequences unintended even on the part of the Prime Minister.
I think we do have to look at it and take a serious look at rolling it back.