Agriculture Committee on March 10th, 2010

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

As long as we're still dealing with routine motions and adopting the routine motions that were agreed upon, I would like to put forward a motion that we eliminate working meals for this committee. It's time for restraint. Plus, we are sitting at 3:30, and I don't feel that it's appropriate for us to be asking the clerk to have working meals for us. I see that it is still in the routine motions. I would put forward a motion that we eliminate this part of our routine motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It's certainly not relevant because of the time of our meetings. I don't mean that your suggestion was irrelevant; it's just that meals aren't going to be here because of the time of our meetings.

The only comment I would make, Mr. Storseth, is that if we ever did have a regular extended meeting, this motion would allow us to have a meal brought in. But at the same time, we could always deal with it at the time.

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

Nonetheless, I would put the motion forward, because I think that as members of Parliament we can pay our own bills for lunch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Is it agreed that we remove this?

Wayne.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm not going to disagree with the motion, but I do want to just put it on the record that there is certainly a double standard coming out of the budget on this matter. Brian is talking about restraint at committee, but there is a double standard because, as I understand it, Privy Council Office expenditures are going to increase by somewhere around 21%.

We're seeing the members' office budgets frozen and we're seeing this request for committees in terms of no meals, but I just think it has to be stated on the record that there is one area where there isn't any restraint being exercised, and that is in the advisory capacity to the Prime Minister's Office. Their expenditures, as was noted today in the House, are expected to go up. We know, and I think all Canadians know, that they are basically the propaganda machine for the Conservative Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I don't think we'll be hosting any Privy Council meetings here, Mr. Easter.

We'll hear from Alex, and then André.

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

I have a question. If, for example, we have to sit until 6:30, or we're sitting longer, the provision exists for us to have a bite to eat. If the provision is not there, I don't mind paying for my meal, but do I go and buy a sandwich and come back to the table? I don't understand the mechanics of that.

This has always been there in case we needed it. We certainly haven't abused it. If we take it out, and we have to sit until 6:30 or 7 o'clock, I'm wondering how we can go about getting a bite to eat as we continue to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

In a case like that, a simple motion would deal with it, Alex. You could have it. You would just have to deal with each instance on its own merits or whatever.

Sorry; the clerk had a list here that I wasn't following.

I have Mr. Hoback, and then Mr. Bellavance.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Actually, Mr. Chair, I'll wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

André.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I would just like to mention to Brian that in French the routine motion reads as follows:

Que le greffier du Comité soit autorisé à prendre les dispositions nécessaires pour organiser des repas de travail pour le Comité et ses sous-comités.

In our case, the clerk is a woman, so greffier should be greffière. In my opinion, we could leave the wording as it is. Our sitting is scheduled at a time when we clearly do not need a meal. If ever we have meetings... I would even add that we do not need to order meals if we are sitting until 7 p.m. or 7:30 p.m., since we can all have dinner afterwards or later on, if we want.

Leaving everything as it is should not cause a problem. It would only help us ensure, if we ever have longer meetings, that we will have a meal, even though we know that there will be no need for one, given the scheduled committee meeting time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Storseth.

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

First of all, I recognize that the working meals for the committee and the subcommittee are to be authorized when necessary, but it's been the tradition that we've had them at all meetings. I believe it's....

Well, the last session we did, Mark. During the last session, if you recall, we met from nine until eleven, and then we also met from eleven until one. In both cases we had meals. We've had 3:30 to 5:30 meetings where we've had meals.

Rather than the clerk feeling obligated to appease members, I think it should be the status quo that we don't have meals. Then, if we're going to have extended meetings and you want to have meals, so be it. I just think it's a matter of principle.

We should vote on this and get to the matter of agriculture.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Can we call the vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes. That's what I'm going to do.

All in favour of Mr. Storseth's motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Is there anything further on routine motions?

I was hoping--we may get agreement today, as we're here anyway--to discuss future business and the direction we want to go in. Some things are still outstanding. We still have the competitiveness report to deal with at some point. There was also a commitment to move into the future of agriculture, basically young farmers. I'd like to hear some comments on that.

I have Mr. Hoback, Mr. Atamanenko, then Mr. Easter.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, there are some good ideas being presented on stuff to look at, but I think it's very important that we come to completion on the report that we've been working on. I recognize the fact that some of the stuff now is starting to get two years old. You wonder if it's still relevant. In the same breath, I think it's very important that we complete that report, get it done, before we even talk about or entertain any other type of business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Alex.

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

I tend to agree with Randy, but there's not a lot of work. We can probably get through it fairly quickly. I'm trying to recall some of the changes we had; I don't think there's many more. We have the report. We have some motions that were on the table. I know I have one, and there were a couple of other ones.

Perhaps we could make a commitment to get through that, to set a time and do it quickly. We've talked, and we have some items for a steering committee agenda. Hopefully you folks have some there. We can then get together and hammer out an agenda for the next couple of months in the steering committee and probably get this work done pretty quickly.

That's just the comment I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The reason the competitiveness study isn't done is that Parliament was basically shut down. Also, I don't see this as the defining issue right at the moment that's going to ensure farm survival out there. There are several very, very serious issues on which we need to make recommendations.

I have tabled with the clerk five motions, I believe it is, that need to be considered, but certainly I think one of our first priorities has to be an in-depth look at the hog industry loan loss reserve program and the hog farm transition program. They're not working and the industry is telling us that now.

Just for your reference, to understand how serious this matter is, Mr. Chair, I had a meeting with the Canadian Pork Council the other day, and we're seeing Canadian exports of pork go down. We are seeing Canadian producers go out of business. We're seeing imports of American pork go up.

The last hog plant in Atlantic Canada could shut down on March 31. In P.E.I., compared to five years ago, breeding stock is down 70%. This is how serious it is. All other hogs are down 65%. In Nova Scotia, breeding stock is down 49%, with all other hogs down 91%. I have the numbers here and I'll give people copies. In Ontario, breeding stock is down 21.5% and all others down 24.4%. In Canada as a whole, we're down roughly 22%.

This is extremely serious. We're losing an industry. It's at the point in my area in Atlantic Canada that the Atlantic Grains Council is having meetings to decide what crops they can grow as an alternative to barley, because they have no market for the barley. People are going out of the beef business. They are out of the hog business. They have no market for barley. In P.E.I. alone, there are roughly 15,000 acres of contract potatoes that have been cancelled for next year. Those 15,000 acres of potatoes have no home.

I'm just emphasizing the point that we have a number of serious issues about the immediate survival of some of the farm sectors. I think we need to at least hold some meetings on that as a priority before we get to competitiveness. So I would say, number one, that we need to look at the hog industry and have some witnesses in to see if we can recommend something to the government.

I do think we need to hear.... We've tried since last October to get a motion through this committee on the specified risk material removal. We were filibustered by government members in terms of getting that through. There is some kind of proposal in the budget. We don't know what it is. We know it is not new money. We know it's money, but moved around. There's not a new dime in the budget for primary producers, so we need to look at that issue and how that's going to get out there right away. We have already lost five months from when André first put his motion.

One of the other motions I have here, with which we'll deal at another meeting, is a serious concern to all members in all ridings, I think. It is on AgriStability and how it is functioning or not functioning, especially on CAIS overpayments.

You must be hearing a lot of this, Pierre.

There were overpayments for the CAIS program in 2005 or 2006--in both years, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Just for clarification, do you mean overpayments like mistakes, or advance payments?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, no, overpayments.

I think what happened is the pressure was on for the government to get the money out. The money went out, and I have some people receiving as much as $23,000 too much.

The problem for us is that it is one thing to deal with Agriculture Canada, but I have one individual who actually sold off everything but his house, and now Revenue Canada is after him on that overpayment and it looks like he's going to have to declare bankruptcy in order to pay it off. This is a guy who produced food for 30 years.

So there are some real serious issues, not necessarily directly related to Agriculture Canada, but the overpayments that were paid become a liability back to Revenue Canada. It's a real problem, and we have to find some solutions. I think there are two or three issues we must deal with forthwith. Key would be the hog industry question first, second the beef SRM question, and then get to some of these others at a later time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Easter raises some issues. Obviously we do at some point need to look at cleaning up the screw-ups by the former Liberal government in 2005. It has created a large problem in our area as well.

First of all, we have this report, which, as Mr. Atamanenko said, shouldn't take that much time if we all get down to it and are willing to cooperate a little bit and get this report on competitiveness done, which is very important to the industry. It also lays out one of the ways forward that our committee feels for the future of agriculture and ways out of some of the problems.

I do agree that we should talk about the hog sector and some of the things going on, but I would personally like to see us deal with the SRM issue and the regulatory disparity between Canada and the United States. I think our committee should take some time to lay out what our vision is moving forward on that and how we're going to address that. Obviously I'm sure Mr. Easter is secretly happy that rather than just talking about it we actually put some money out, $25 million. But now we also have $40 million that are going to be used for innovation, and I think our committee should have a say in which direction we should be going and what kind of innovation we should be getting into to address the disparity and regulatory burden, particularly when it comes to SRMs.

This is something we can have a positive spin on and maybe have a substantive voice in some current issues moving forward. So I think it is something our committee should look at fairly quickly and fairly expeditiously.

Obviously there are a lot of other issues. We had a major drought out in the prairies, and there are some issues there that we'd like to talk about and I have some motions on. We also have Mr. Shipley's motion on the future of agriculture, which encompasses all of this, which we have also agreed to talk about. I think it's important that we don't just get caught up on issues of the day. I think it's important with some of the ones that we are going to tackle that we look at things where we can put forward our voice and hopefully have some impact on things such as the new SRM regulations that are coming out and some of the regulatory disparity that we're currently seeing and the farmers need us to address.

I would think those would be some of our priorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Storseth.

Mr. Bellavance.