Evidence of meeting #8 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 cattle.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Chairman, Beef Information Centre
Well, that would be my personal opinion, to take the money from Alberta. Our policy in the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is to make the CAIS program much more responsive, so that individual provinces don't need to launch their own programs.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I think you missed the mark. I'd like to give you a chance later to talk about that.
Mr. Haney, you talked about the $85-per-head export premium that we can get in Asia, or the $100 per head in certain markets. In the discussion with the parliamentary secretary, the thing we missed is that some of the product we export is product we can't sell here in Canada. There are markets for offal and other things, which we can sell and they want, that quite frankly we're not going to utilize. I think you're absolutely right in your comments, but I'd like you to extrapolate a little.
We had SARM here at the last meeting, and they were talking about how they wished the Saskatchewan government had taken the leadership role that the Alberta government took when they put the $120 a head in place, attaching age verification to it. They believe that's going to be critical in gaining some of this export premium throughout the world.
Do you agree with that? What role do you see age verification taking in our opening of export markets?
President, Canada Beef Export Federation
Age verification is a tool that is particularly useful right now for the market in Japan, where imports of beef are restricted for animals under 21 months of age. There's no reasonable physiological measurement to identify these animals once they're already a carcass, so age verification becomes the tool. We are expecting to see a surge of exports to Japan in 2009 because of the increased numbers of cattle being age verified in Alberta—bleeding off, as a result, into Saskatchewan, B.C., and Manitoba as well.
That said, it's not per se a market opening tool, but it exploits access that is already given to us. It allows us to sell more into a highly restricted market. From that perspective, it's very effective.
From an export perspective, the more cattle that are age-verified, the more we'll export to age-restricted markets. As to how that's done, I'll leave it to government and industry in Canada to work out their own ways of moving forward. But it is very useful.
It's also clear that if we're going to get our income from the market, then we need markets and we need a lot more focus. The committee has a document package that has been delivered to it from Canada Beef that describes a complete revitalization of how Canada approaches market access. That part isn't fixed; it isn't done. We aren't moving ahead, we aren't leaders, and we aren't opening markets nearly as fast or as effectively as we need to. It's not fixed, and it is an area that needs a great deal of focus, and then we can get our income from the markets. But in order to do that, we have to get the markets.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Haney, would you agree that the competitiveness aspect of our industry is an area the committee should be making a priority and focusing on at this point in time?
President, Canada Beef Export Federation
I believe, as I said in my opening statement, that both within industry and governments, new international focus, orientation, and culture are required.
I'll give you a short example to show that: electronic certification of the movement of beef products. Years ago we put into full electronic format the importation certificates for Canadian beef. In the last few years, we actually put in a certification system such that our electronic database goes into the New Zealand database and extracts all of their certificates...handshakes, and there at the point of entry is all the information for the inspectors. That's sophisticated.
For export certificates, it's a paper base. It's months and months behind before we get export data. They're in boxes in the back of vets' offices. There's no regulatory focus on the drive for exports. It's not a technical issue, but a trade policy issue—and that needs revitalization. I think it's important for this committee and for our entire industry and governments.
Conservative
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
Welcome, Gentlemen. This file is new for me as well. Furthermore, I have a little case of the flu.
Given that you want to develop a world market for your beef, I was wondering if you had changed your feeding practices for your livestock, in order to avoid any re-occurrence of mad cow disease. If we succeeded in opening our market worldwide, all you would need is a single case of BSE to be discovered in order for the whole thing to crumble and fall.
Board Chair, Canada Beef Export Federation
If you will allow me, I would like to answer, as a producer.
The act that was passed prohibits us from feeding SRMs to animals, be they cows or other livestock, as well as pets. These changes are in place and are being enforced. We are therefore prohibited by law from doing something that we did not want to do initially.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
I will share my time with Mr. Bellavance, who had not finished with his questions.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I would like to come back to you, Mr. Read.
You stated earlier, with regard to the kill capability, that the best strategy did not necessarily consist in increasing the number of slaughterhouses in Canada but rather in ensuring the sustainability of those that already exist, among others the Levinoff-Colbex slaughterhouse in Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover.
If, in the context of the current program, you were to obtain financial assistance from the federal government to ensure the sustainability of this slaughterhouse, would you be able to guarantee that your request for funding would not be recurrent, in other words, that you would be able to hold the fort for quite some time without governments having to inject monies too repeatedly or regularly?
Chairman, Beef Committee, Canadian Meat Council
I'm from the meat-packing/meathead standpoint. Looking for government money is not my forte. It has never been in the meathead standpoint--I think the Honourable Wayne Easter can support that initiative--unless it's absolutely required.
We have a unique opportunity in Quebec. I'll talk specifically about it. We have one of the most effective and efficient slaughter floors in the country. It doesn't have a boning operation and it has to transport everything into Montreal. That's an automatic saving of over $2 million a year just on that part of it, not including whatever else we can do.
But as far as my coming back every two years for government funding, I sure wouldn't know how to do that. It's just not in my background. I apologize for that, but it's not required. Getting our capacity and our slaughter numbers up is.
Can I just take a second to refer to your question on feed...?
Chairman, Beef Committee, Canadian Meat Council
I'm sorry; did I answer your question, Mr. Bellavance?
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Yes, absolutely.
Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I was wondering if you were aware of the statements made by the minister of State for Agriculture, Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn, that appeared last week in the weekly publication entitled La Terre de chez nous. He is quoted as stating that he is open to the possibility of granting financial assistance to the Levinoff-Colbex slaughterhouse, but that it would be in the form of a repayable loan. This is the first time I have heard talk of a repayable loan.
Have you heard of this? Would this satisfy you even if this is not what is outlined in the budget?
Chairman, Beef Committee, Canadian Meat Council
I'm not sure if I'm in a position to answer that right away. I heard it by rumour. You'd have to put a pencil to it and see exactly where it is and what we're talking about in the spirit of the loan. I'm not in a position to say, because I haven't studied it.
You're the second person...and the other person was arm's-length away from it all. You can't really base your decision on emotion. You have to have a look at what we're talking about and the principle of it, correct?
Conservative
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you.
Thank you to all for being here today.
I want to focus on a couple of things I am hearing in common from all three groups. It seems to me the two issues I'm hearing seem to be the biggest facing the industry right now, certainly, first of all, country of origin labelling and the impact that is having and could have on our industry. Then there is the sense of optimism that I seem to hear in our government's approach to market access, particularly the creation of a market access secretariat and pursuit of bilateral agreements with announcements such as the ones in Hong Kong and Saudi Arabia. I am sensing a general satisfaction from all three groups here with our government strategy in that regard and the promise that brings for the future of the industry.
Is that in fact the case? Do I hear from all three groups that those issues, COOL and market access, are the two most important issues facing the industry right now? And why or why not?
Chairman, Beef Information Centre
I'll go for that first.
I would say we probably have three main issues: trade, COOL, and profitability of the industry; that's another challenge before us right now. Many of the folks in the cattle industry are liquidating and the beef supply is being reduced. The cow numbers are being reduced because there's a general spirit from the west to the east that there is not enough profitability left in the beef industry, and so people are exiting. Profitability is a major challenge in front of us, and some of that is affected by both COOL and international trade.
Conservative
President, Canada Beef Export Federation
No question, the two are related. COOL represents a restriction on the ability to generate full-value trade to the U.S. It's a trade protectionist policy, so that means the need to generate full competition from all other markets is part of the solution in addition to challenging those restrictions by themselves.
We have hope associated with the announced agriculture market access secretariat, and there's promise associated with it, but we haven't seen what it is. We need to be deeply involved in generating what it will be. To the committee, I delivered a quick look at what it might be--25 recommendations for what it must embody--and also a copy of a letter signed by 12 organizations to Minister Ritz reinforcing what the elements of success for an AMAS might be.
So there's hope and promise, but the demonstration--that's yet to come. We need to be very much involved in that.
And yes, trade is vital. It's all related.
Conservative
Chairman, Beef Committee, Canadian Meat Council
Yes, just to follow up.
Profitability is a big concern. That has to be high-profile, as does this global economic crunch. What's it going to do to the demand for us in the future? We have to get economists with some history behind us. I think we have a meeting coming up here in May where we can get a lay of the world in order to see where this thing's going to crash out. Where does meat really stack up for tomorrow?
Profitability is a major concern. In terms of setting regulations or rules that disadvantage the meat industry in Canada, you will that find the meat processors in this country might not be quite so cooperative in the future because of that.
