Agriculture Committee on March 12th, 2009

[Michel Dessureault]

Maybe we would or maybe we wouldn't; I don't know. One thing is for certain, however: there would be a lot more farms shutting down in Quebec because there would be no price in the market. We have learned all the lessons of the BSE crisis. You have as well, and that is the reason why we have moved in this direction.

How can we properly prepare for the future? Well, just look at the slaughterhouse capacity in Canada. How many players remain in the industry here in Canada? There are only two major players left in Canada. That is the Canadian reality. With us, it makes three, even though we are a little like “dinosaurs” in the East. It is important to keep them operating. They have to be there.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I agree with that comment you made. We need to learn from the rules what happened with BSE and the over-reliance on one market, and we also need to understand what happens when the market gets shut down. I guess that would explain why the minister is going around the world opening up markets for cuts of beef that we don't eat here and stuff like that.

I guess that would also explain why he has a $40 million or $50 million fund sitting there in the budget, sitting in front of the Liberal Senate trying to get approved, but hopefully it will get approved some day and hopefully you guys can access it to do some of the improvements that you want to do. I think it's important to have that competition, not only within Canada, but to have that packing capacity to export that beef throughout the world.

Would there be anything else you would suggest the minister should be doing to help out? I know you talked about some of the regulations and some of those issues there, and I know I've brought regulations up a couple of times in our scheduling and I've asked each group to table any regulations that they see are counterproductive or giving them an unfair burden compared to the competition around the world. And maybe I don't have enough time, but if you can table those to us, we'd really appreciate that.

[Ron Bonnett]

I can just mention a few things from the Ontario experience.

When we had the Gencor plant that started in Ontario to respond to BSE, they went through a nightmare dealing with the regulatory requirements of getting that plant up and operating. Sometimes it was just foolish stuff, like moving a wall six inches or something like that. It was nothing to do with food safety. It was just basically this is what was written down in the book and that's how it had to be done.

I think we have to take a look at all of the regulations that we have in place--and this is broader than just meat packing--take a look at the regulations, see what it is they're intending to address, see if they're actually addressing it and see if there's some overburden there that can be eliminated. The ultimate goal of regulations is to solve a problem, and you've got to start focusing in on that, because sometimes I think they get carried away in writing the regulations. That is one.

When you're looking at the red meat industry--because there's the domestic and the export side--we have to also take a look at those domestic restrictions that are there for regulations that block access to some markets.

I know a producer up in my area was trying to sell lamb into the Sault Ste. Marie market. He was in there, and then all of a sudden they said that unless it's a federally inspected plant they were not going to accept that product. So all of a sudden you've got a regulatory barrier. Because there wasn't a federal plant close by, it put that producer at a disadvantage.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So even though he was in Canada, he was a Canadian producer, he couldn't even ship it somewhere else in Canada?

[Ron Bonnett]

That's true.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, your time's expired.

Mr. Rouillard, you've indicated a couple of times. I thought maybe you wanted to jump in and then the time expired. Did you have anything? We're getting close to the end of the questioning, and I just wondered if there was something you--

[Paul Rouillard]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're okay?

I have just one question, if I could. This is basically to our groups from Quebec.

There's been a lot of discussion here today and at some other meetings about interprovincial boundaries and the difference between federally inspected plants for the red meat sector--and it can go beyond that--and provincially inspected plants.

What have you been doing, and are you willing to continue the fight to try to convince your government in Quebec to basically harmonize things in this area? And this needs to happen across the country if we want to get rid of some... Do you speak a little bit, any of you, about what you have done or can do as far as that?

It's obviously an issue. It's hurting the country. What I relate it to is the BSE thing, in which Canada faced the brunt of it, when we all know it's a North American market, and it wasn't just a Canadian problem. So if a couple of you could touch on that, I'd appreciate it.

[Michel Dessureault]

I don't know whether there are problems in the hog industry, but I am well acquainted with the interprovincial trade issue. In Quebec, we want to seek assurances, in our discussions with the Canadian government, that what is laid out in our collective marketing rules will be recognized across Canada as the producers' reality.

That does not mean that the rules that apply should not be consistent. There are certain vested rights, and we have to find a way of enabling the free flow of products all across Canada, while at the same time respecting what the producers have done.

The example I would cite was the collective acquisition of the Levinoff-Colbex slaughterhouse by 14,300 producers. We have to be able to continue to work that way, because it benefits the entire beef industry in both Quebec and Canada.

That is what we are seeking to preserve in our current discussions on interprovincial trade. There are a certain number of adjustments to be made, as we certainly recognize, and we will take whatever time is needed to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Do I take it that you support the free flow of products from province to province, both ways? Yes or no?

[Michel Dessureault]

Yes, we do support the free flow of goods, as long as it occurs based on the rules in effect in Quebec, and not minimal rules. The current rules are the reason for the strength of our collective marketing system. Everything relies on that marketing system, which we have to preserve. If we cannot preserve it, we would clearly not support the free flow of products.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. The only point I would make on that is I think it's part of the problem.

Just briefly, does anybody else wish to comment?

Mr. Vincent.

[Jean-Guy Vincent]

I would just like to answer your question about the slaughter facilities that have signed an agreement that binds producers and processors in Quebec. Because these are all federally-inspected slaughterhouses, that does not affect us. The other slaughterhouses are under provincial regulation. So, we see no particular issue in that regard.

Producers have benefited from the Advance Payments Program, or APP, that Parliament implemented to ensure their survival. Parliamentarians took quick action to ensure the survival of the hog industry in Canada, which was very important. I said this before and I will say it again. Today I am speaking on behalf of Quebec, but it is critical that the message of Canadian producers, whatever their province of origin, be heard.

With respect to COOL labelling, we have said that it is important for the Canadian government to quickly engage the United States on this issue, because of the protectionist attitudes that seem to be taking hold. Canadian products should be promoted based on the needs of consumers both inside and outside Canada. We have to be innovative and invest in the green boxes that are allowed, in order to comply with WTO rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We're almost out of time. We have four minutes left. I'd like to—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We have more questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter, I'm sure everybody does.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the meeting adjourns at one o'clock. We don't have any motions on the table, I don't believe. The meeting didn't start until ten after. We're just wondering why—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter, I started the meeting before people were at the table. I did my best to get everybody—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I was sitting right here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Pardon?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I was sitting right here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Maybe you were, but not everybody, including our guests--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We're wondering why you're always in such a rush to prevent questions from being asked to witnesses, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter, I'm not in any rush to keep questions....You know the rules. And just the other day you said that meetings needed to end by one o'clock or shortly before. That was your statement.

You had a point of order, Mr. Lemieux?

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

Mr. Chair, I want to say I agree. We all have places to go at one o'clock, and I think we should be in the habit of ending meetings at one o'clock. But I have a different point of order. I was just responding to Mr. Easter's concerns.

The point of order I'd like to raise, Chair, is that you remember at the end of the last meeting Mr. Easter had a motion on the table where he wanted to pose six questions to the minister. He had a flare-up before the vote, which turned out to be premature, because we ended up voting in accordance with the motion, as I had indicated to Mr. Easter before the motion had actually been up for discussion. I did that in a spirit of goodwill.

We need to work together on this committee, work together as colleagues. I have good news for Mr. Easter today, and what I'd like to do during this point of order, Chair, is actually table the answers from the minister.

In the motion, I believe the minister had until March 23, and here it is, March 12. I'm here two days later, and we have answers for Mr. Easter. It's my pleasure to table these answers in both official languages.