Agriculture Committee on May 26th, 2010

[Jill Harvie]

I'll defer that one to Travis, if he wants to answer.

[Travis Toews]

Sure. There has been work done to determine BSE eradication time related to the long list of SRM removal and disposal, which is what Canada has, and the shorter list that the U.S. has adopted. The study I'm familiar with showed that the eradication time by using the short list was not significantly longer than by going to the long list. We're not talking about food safety here; we're talking about disease eradication time.

So at the time, CCA advocated for the short list; however, during the course of the discussions, and as we looked at the cost estimates that CFIA had performed related to long list implementation, we eventually conceded we would go with the long list. Now, those cost estimates were significantly lower than what the actuals have been, and we do believe the ultimate goal is harmonization with the U.S. on SRM regulation.

We know that in the short term there's going to be a process to get there. We are in trade negotiations right now--key trade negotiations--and we know we can't get there instantly. That is why we called for a program to help share the costs or cover the costs of SRM disposal in the short term. We also see an interim solution as assisting plants, processors and renderers, in dealing with capital costs relating to reducing the amount of SRM material we have to dispose of even within the context of the long list.

As Jill noted, the long-term goal would be ultimate harmonization with the U.S., but we do recognize that there's a process to get there. And because of the trade negotiations at play, we likely won't get there immediately.

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

And the EU? What are your thoughts on the agreement?

[Travis Toews]

Well, there are two topics related to the EU. One topic is the quota that the U.S. was granted, basically in compensation for winning the hormones case. Now, Canada was part of that case at the WTO, and we won as well. At this point, the negotiations are taking place to determine how large our share of that quota will be and whether our share of the quota will be added on to the U.S. quota or will be a stand-alone quota.

We certainly have every expectation of meeting the definition of the U.S. duty-free quota, so we're working to that end. We've been delayed getting there, relative even to Australia and other competitors, but we anticipate getting there.

In terms of the European free trade agreement, we're very positive about that free trade agreement, but at this time, under our current protocols, we cannot export beef from Canada that has been implanted with growth promotants.

I'm not going to presuppose the results of our negotiation at this point, but in the event that in our negotiation we conceded that point along the way, then if there were a financial incentive, we would have a certain segment of our industry that would likely move to producing beef product without growth promoters--but it would be at a higher cost.

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

Like the gold standard example on the Prairies.

[Travis Toews]

I'm not sure what the gold standard reference is, but that would be a distinct protocol in that case, for the European market. At this point, I'm not willing to concede that this early in the negotiation, but certainly, if there were extra protocols that the Europeans negotiated with us, and if there were financial incentive, with the lucrative nature of the European market I'm certain that entrepreneurs in Canada would adjust their production protocols to meet that market demand.

I think the one thing we do have to be careful about, though, is that when we look at any market access protocols in other countries, whether it's Asia or Europe, we need to ensure that we don't subject all of our production to extra regulatory cost. We must stay competitive within North America for North American production, and we must allow the industry, in a market-driven way, to respond to market opportunities by adding production protocols voluntarily.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Travis.

Mr. Lemieux, I understand that you and Mr. Richards are splitting your time.

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

Yes. I'm going to start.

First, I want to say welcome to Jill. Navan is a great little town in my riding. I think Olds is very fortunate to have you and your husband move there, but I really think you should consider moving back to Navan.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I really do want to address this SRM issue. I feel that we got sidetracked on this. We're trying to study young farmers, but there were concerted comments on this.

The reality of SRM is this. I believe I heard Travis say that the industry is very happy with what was in the budget. It's not just Travis who said that, but beef producers and other beef and cattle associations we've met with across Canada and here in front of the committee.

In terms of why money hasn't flowed yet, we're working with industry. I think this is crucial, because, for example, we just had a meeting last month with 50 people to ensure that the program that's delivered meets the expectations of the industry.

If you remember, when BSE hit, the Liberals delivered a program that was a complete fiasco. In fact, they had to conduct a full-scale investigation to find out where the money went, and they concluded that the money went to the wrong place. So this consultative process is key to ensuring that money is delivered effectively and efficiently and in the manner that will best help the industry.

The third point I want to make, Chair, before I sign off here is that, for all the interest that the opposition is expressing in terms of SRM, our last budget announced $75 million. In difficult economic times, we announced $75 million for slaughterhouses, for processing plants for beef over 30 months, and for SRM. These members, every single one of them, voted against that. What we've heard from the industry is that it needs financial support to help with this. What the opposition did was vote against it.

Chair, I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to clear the record. I'd like to now turn it over to my colleague Mr. Richards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Eyking, on a point of order.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Yes, just on one point, because we're doing this study across Canada, and maybe Mr. Lemieux forgot what we heard from the cattlemen's association in Alberta. They stated that the program we had wasn't perfect but that it stabilized the industry and kept it from going down the tubes.

I don't know if you were there at the moment when they told us that, but that's just to clarify the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Richards.

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

You guys conducted a full-scale investigation into where the money went--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Order, please. Mr. Richards has the floor.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that their debate is over with, we can get to some questions here.

I'd like to focus my questions on Jill and Chan, who I see as the next generation of farmers. As we've been doing the study, we've been travelling across the country, and we have met many young farmers from my generation and your generation. We're hearing a message that is very similar to what I heard from both of you today, I think.

It's interesting, because from Jill, who did come from Pierre's riding, apparently, and who now lives in my riding in Alberta, and from Chan, from almost all the way across the country in Newfoundland, I heard some very similar messages in terms of a couple of key things. They're messages that we've heard in various parts across the country.

It's a real tribute to our young farmers in this country that we have folks like you who are so positive and who really want to promote your industry and want to be passionate about it and share it with people. Those are the kinds of people we need to carry on the future of farming. I've found it really encouraging to meet people like you and many other young farmers across this country. I just wanted to say that.

I have a couple of questions for you. I'll throw the questions out at you and then ask that each of you address each question.

For the first one, you both did touch on this briefly, I think, in your opening remarks, and also very briefly in some of the questioning. It's the idea of educating consumers about where their food comes from, helping them to understand, and helping young people to understand the farm and what goes on and maybe even getting them interested in becoming farmers themselves. It's that education.

I've heard various different suggestions. I want to hear your suggestions on how we might do that. One of the best ideas I've ever heard is the idea of a commercial. Actually, it would be quite similar to the commercial that you see during the NHL playoffs right now. It shows the end result, which, in the case of those commercials on TV, is the big goal, the big save, whatever it might be, and then it flashes back.

So obviously in the case of agriculture, it would be showing the end result, which would be the product on store shelf. Maybe it's my favourite meal, an Alberta beef strip loin steak, or maybe it's a bag of potatoes, or maybe it's a loaf of bread or a jug of milk, whatever it might be. That's the end result. Then it would flash back through the various stages of production to get it to that point, and right back to the farm, of course.

Maybe that would help people to understand where their food comes from and what it goes through to get to them. That's one suggestion. I'd like to hear your comments on that. I'd also like to hear your suggestions on other things we could do to help educate consumers. That's question one.

With respect to question two, neither of you is a first-generation farmer. I know that you're at least second-generation farmers, and I certainly know Jill's husband's family as well. They've been on the farm for a long time, and I've known their family for a long time. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the differences--and I've asked this all across the country--between the situation now, as you're getting started in farming, and what it was like when your parents were getting started in farming, and, if your grandparents were on the farm, what things were like in their day as well. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on what the biggest differences are. I'll leave those two questions with you.

Jill, since you're from my riding, I'll let you go first.

Chan, I'll let you take it after that.

[Jill Harvie]

Thank you, Blake.

First, on addressing consumer education, I think the commercial idea is a great idea, but I think the more hands-on approach that we've been taking with 4-H, youth breed associations, fairs, and exhibitions, having people being able to be around animals and around the people who care for them, and having those people explain what they do from day to day is extremely important. That's been a really good experience for me. Every time I go to a cattle show we have tons of people, cousins from the city who come through, and we explain to them what you do with the cattle.

Another idea is a YouTube video. I produced one myself. At this young ranchers round table, we're also producing a video, which I think is a great way to reach out to our friends on the Internet. A lot of people in my age group are on Facebook, etc., and it has been a great way to reach out and just have them see us on our operations as we talk about what we do and what we do for our environment as well.

As for encouraging more youth in our industry and encouraging them to stay in our industry and understand our industry better so they can be successful, we have the concept of a young leaders development program, which CCA is supporting and is in the midst of developing. This program will enable mentorship programs both for professional development in careers related to agriculture, beef especially, and for industry leadership development as well in regard to having people who want to be part of our industry and part of our provincial cattle organizations, etc.

In turn, then, we'll be able to send highly capable representatives to events such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meetings, the Five Nations Beef Alliance Young Ranchers Round Table, and the International Livestock Congress. We can really get people engaged and interested in understanding what our issues are.

On your second question, which was about the differences between when my parents started up and where we are today, it definitely feels as if we're buying the farm twice. What I mean by this is that two areas are affecting us: financing the purchase of our assets and the taxation implications of buying land.

Our parents want to retire, and the only way they can afford to retire is for us to sell some of our land and pay for their retirement, but that's obviously not going to happen, because we want to grow our business, become more profitable, and be able to market our genetics worldwide. We're going to need more land and more cattle, so we're having to pay them for the land we're purchasing from them while trying to grow our operation. When cattle prices are as low as they are, our bull buyers aren't able to buy bulls or they're not able to buy bulls for the price we would like, so profitability just isn't there. At the end of the day, our industry has to be profitable for us to be in it.

[Chan Wiseman]

Well, first off, you know, agriculture is tough, but being a politician is pretty tough these days as well--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Chan Wiseman]

--judging by the back-and-forth in this room. I'm a politics watcher, so it's great to see it from that perspective, I guess, if you like politics.

I'm going to answer your last question first. My parents were born in 1950s after World War II, so I guess you can call them baby boomers. The baby boomers went through the sixties and the seventies, certainly, with a lot of growth and rejuvenation in the economy and so on and so forth. But today, my parents and a lot of other baby boomers have left my generation with an extreme amount of debt, whether it's credit card debt, mortgage debt, farm debt, you name it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Government debt--

[Chan Wiseman]

Yes, government debt. There's a lot of debt out there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes. You know who started it.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Mr. Chair....