Agriculture Committee on Nov. 16th, 2010

[An hon. member]

It's payback.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I'm just going to move on. Let's move to the motion on fertilizer.

Mr. Easter, do you want to speak on that? It's on page 5.

Could you read it?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, it reads:

That the committee begin a study on consolidation of the fertilizer industry in Canada and its impact on Canadian farmers. And that the committee report its findings to the House of Commons.

I don't see us doing this right now, Mr. Chair. You're using the words “park it”, till the new year, I guess.

But I do think one of the things that has certainly come out of the potash takeover proposals is that you want to talk about a supply management system. It's interesting that so many people in big corporations attack the supply management system in Canada, but there's nothing like the supply management system run by the potash companies of the world, and one of the big players in that is Canpotex, which really is the single-desk seller for Potash Corporation and Agrium and Mosaic. They're the single-desk seller for potash. In fact, there was the article in The Globe and Mail that starts this way: “For nearly forty years, it was the cartel no one talked about. Then came the food crisis, runaway prices and BHP Billiton's hostile takeover bid for Potash Corp. Now there is a harsh spotlight on Canpotex.”

I'll not read any further than that, Mr. Chair, but when you start to look at the amount of power that Canpotex has in terms of pricing, you will see that they basically shut down mines when they don't get the price they want to get. It's not a free market in the potash industry. The people who pay the excess prices for that potash are the primary producers who use it as fertilizer, and not only farmers in Canada but also everyone around the world.

So I do think that at some point in time we need to look seriously at the consolidation in the potash industry, how it's affecting the cost of production of our producers in Canada, and how it's affecting food supply around the world. In fact, they're reducing the supply of potash at times, not because they're not making a profit but because they are not making big enough profits for their shareholders. They could in fact be accused of creating a food shortage in some areas of the world.

So this is an important motion. I think we have other priority issues at the moment, so I will “park it” until the new year. But I want to leave it on the books, because after this takeover bid, now we know how powerful Canpotex is and how they manage supply at the expense of primary producers and food suppliers.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay. We're going to park that.

We're now going to go to Francis Valeriote and his motion on animal welfare.

I don't know if we're going to have enough time, but--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'll try to be brief, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, you'll recall in the spring of this year that a report was made public respecting the issue of animal welfare. That caused alarm among certain stakeholders in the agricultural industry. I know this is an extremely sensitive topic among all stakeholders in the industry; nevertheless, even sensitive topics need to be discussed. I believe issues associated with animal welfare should, and ought to be, brought before this committee, at least so that this committee is better informed about the state of animal welfare in Canada.

I think it's important for us to have a better understanding of animal welfare to determine on our own, through this study, whether or not any changes need to be made to regulations or policy. For that reason we recommend that we undertake a study of animal welfare, including, without limitation, the number of animals dying or severely injured during transport, overcrowding transport conditions, overcrowded living conditions, the adequacy of the number of animal inspectors for the enforcement of animal welfare conditions, and the adequacy of animal welfare regulations.

We may find--I'm hoping we'll find--that these regulations and policies are in a good state and they perhaps need only minor tweaking, if at all. Frankly, I'm uncertain, and I would suggest that most of us around this table are uncertain as to the current state of animal welfare in Canada.

I think it behooves us to at least bring witnesses before this committee, to have a better understanding of animal welfare in the country. For that reason, I brought forward this motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It states here that we undertake a study.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

You don't like studies. You're against studies.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Order.

Do you want to go forward or do you want to park this thing?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'd like to place it before the committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Are there any comments on this?

Mr. Storseth.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of clarification on the last notice of motion that was put forward, did Mr. Easter bring it forward, or did he--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, I parked it until the new year.

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

So you didn't bring it forward at all?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Right. We'll leave it on the books.

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

It's still a priority, but not until the new year?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's not a priority. There are too many other issues at the moment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Valeriote has moved this motion and now we're going into discussion.

Is there any discussion on this motion before we bring it to a vote?

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Sure, I'll bring up some discussion, Chair.

The first is that, once again, a study is important. I find this quite baffling, actually. We just went through a 10-minute discussion: if we were to have a study, this would delay and obstruct the important work of committee in making forceful recommendations to the House.

Within minutes of having voted against a study, Mr. Valeriote is asking the committee to vote for a study. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Easter was asking for a study on a number of different matters. He was advocating quite strongly for a study because it's important for the committee to do that work and to ensure it has the facts in front of it. But when it came to the last motion, the study was considered to be an obstructionist tactic that would slow down and delay the work of the committee and somehow water down the important recommendation the committee should be making to the House.

I'd love to hear the explanation for this. How is it that in certain circumstances, when we're discussing opposition motions, studies are critical? They're absolutely essential. We must have them. But when we're discussing amendments to these motions from the government side, studies are a waste of time and should not be conducted; we should be delivering strongly worded messages to the House without studies.

That's the first point.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Lemieux, I hope we don't get into debate about why we should have a study or not have one.

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

It's important to raise these points.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Can you speak on the motion?

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

I'm getting to it, Chair. I cannot be rushed on these matters.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I can see that, but I'm hoping we can deal with this one. Maybe we can't deal with it within our time constraints, but go ahead.

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

Chair, what I want to bring up, of course, is that no one condones cruelty to animals. Animals must be treated in a humane way, whether that be on farms, in transport from farms to processing facilities, or at processing facilities. I don't think any MP sitting around this table would condone cruelty to animals.

But I think it's important, too, to underline that the vast majority of producers and processors transport livestock safely. Sure, a few need to do better, but the majority do so and are very responsible. Of course, not only is it ethical and not only is it important to treat animals humanely, but it's also just good business sense. If livestock is injured or livestock dies in transport, this goes against the business model of everybody who's involved in that value chain. So in a sense, there's a driving force behind this, aside from the ethics of it and aside from the good judgment of it, and that's just the business case that supports treating animals in a humane way as well.

I do want to point out, Chair, that very recently our government has given to the CFIA the tools it needs to impose tougher fines to improve animal welfare. If there is a case of an animal not being treated properly, if its welfare is taken for granted, then there are fines that can be imposed by CFIA. We have more than doubled the fines. The previous limit was $4,000. That was set by the Liberals. We've more than doubled it to $10,000. So I think, Chair, that's a very good step in the right direction. As well, we've extended the amount of time that CFIA can consider multiple offences--from three years to five years.

So again, CFIA has more tools at its disposal to actually enforce good animal welfare practice. These are changes that were just passed recently. In fact, stakeholders have recognized that these are good changes. If I remember correctly, I think the opposition may have recognized that these in fact were good changes that were made.

I'll end my comments there for now, Chair. I do want to underscore that, sure, it's an important issue, but I have not heard of widespread problems regarding animal welfare, and there has been recent action taken by the government to give more tools to CFIA to act in cases where animal welfare is at risk.