Agriculture Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

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

Mr. Fitzgerald.

[Darcy Fitzgerald]

I would echo the same remarks that Mr. Walton has given you just now. On the other side, too, we have some very intelligent members of Parliament, one of whom sits on the committee, with whom I've had many opportunities to speak, and I think the right thing will be done. It is a comprehensive agreement, and it is a big task—I realize that—on your shoulders to look at this. I realize that, but I think Canadians have confidence in the government to look at those issues and see where they need to lie and to move forward on the best agreement for all Canadians.

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

I wonder who that member is. I don't see him here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Darcy Fitzgerald]

It might be Mr. Payne.

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

That's it.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Zimmer, for five minutes, please.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our guests for appearing today before committee.

We've heard some comments about COOL and some work that's been going on behind the scenes with our minister, and some of our members have gone down to the States, talking to state representatives about COOL and how bad it is for the entire North American economy.

I've spoken about this before. Suprisingly, in Kansas City this summer we got unanimous support for our resolution that COOL was not necessarily the right way to go. It was so successful it surprised even me. They're getting it now, and they're starting to see it from their own perspective, I guess. Some of us have been doing a lot of work to change their minds, and that credit is due.

André, you talked about the CETA being good in itself, but you also talked about the residual benefits, the benefit of having access to the CETA market, which is going to establish a business model that's beneficial to the entire world. A person who sets up shop in Canada would have access to all these markets around the world. You talked about meat processing, and the fact that having a market where the meat has European approval will be a benefit to us. Can you speak to that?

[André Roy]

I'm not sure if I understand your question, but I will try.

My point about the investment and the CETA and the other deal that could happen regarding the beef is the fact that if you're a company and you cannot export from Canada to certain countries, but if you invest in the U.S. you can export to those countries, where are you going to invest?

That was the point I tried to raise, the fact that Canada has to make sure that we have access to different markets—I'm talking about the beef sector—because if not, someone else will benefit from this, and the industry will shrink. I don't think that's the kind of development we want for our producers.

I don't know if I answered well.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I talked to Bryan, and I spoke earlier today about the opportunities that are there as a result of the CETA that go well beyond the CETA alone. It's quite an opportunity to be realized.

I have a question for our pork person from Saskatoon.

We talk about the pork industry in terms of the CETA—and I've been on this committee for a while now, so I've seen the struggles that the pork industry has had in Canada over the past number of years—and the opportunity there as a result of the CETA.

But sometimes we get lost in the numbers. We hear about 80,000 tonnes, and for the regular Canadian on the street, they need something they can relate that to. How many pigs is that? Does that quantify in terms of dollars? You did speak to the number of dollars in that, but could you just bring that down to the numbers that Canadians can understand?

[Darcy Fitzgerald]

It probably kicks in at somewhere around an extra 8 million pigs that we would see in our system. Right now we're sitting at about 21 million to 25 million pigs. So that's substantial for us, to be able to increase the size of our herd if we can, even just to sit where we are today or to make use of that.

But more important, I think, is to have that opportunity and the demand that might come from those marketplaces, especially for the ham, which is somewhere around 35% of the yield from a carcass. If we can make use of that and the draw is there, it puts a lot of pressure to maybe pay more if those markets are more lucrative, and that's what we're hoping for from a producer perspective.

I think for a processor, if I can speak for them, the more markets they have that pay a higher price for a good quality product, that certainly helps them as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.

We'll now go to Madam Raynault, for five minutes.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We know that pork producers have been having a really hard time for a number of years. What strategy do you intend to use to sell your production in Europe, where the meat is consumed? What do you intend to do to sell more pork in Europe?

[Darcy Fitzgerald]

From a producer’s perspective, which I represent, we would have to leave that to the processors, brokers, exporters, and traders who actually sell in those countries, but through Canada Pork International, I know they have been looking at the ability to have access to Europe.

As I said, those 28 member states represent about 20 million tonnes of pork consumption each year, with a shrinking marketplace. As they slowly work themselves to a decreasing number of pork producers, the demand will definitely increase. They could buy fresh product from us in the form of hams, further process them, and provide that to other nations. I think that's a positive for us.

On the flip side, part of this agreement is to look at what we do with our Canada Food Inspection Agency, and to come to some agreement where the European standards and our own standards are recognized together. If people recognize that we have these higher standards as well, that would give us a greater opportunity around the world and give us more access to other marketplaces.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Someone said earlier that pork is raised without hormones. So why is there this idea that pork is raised with hormones and that people will not buy it as a result? What are you doing to get rid of that idea?

[Darcy Fitzgerald]

It is another good question, and it is unfortunate that we do face that.

I guess one of the things that we lack in our country is a good domestic initiative for marketing the pork industry. We have some provincially, in Quebec, Ontario, or even ourselves in Western Canada, in Alberta and B.C., with our Passion for Pork campaign. It really is up to us to get in front of the consumer and to let them know.

Unfortunately, Canada may be, and North America may be, different from many other pork-consuming countries, where they know this already. It's not as big an issue as we face in Canada, where the consumer really does lack a lot of knowledge about the products and how they're produced. It comes back to the industry to get that information out to the consumer and to let them know what the truth really is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

You have a minute.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

When I buy a piece of pork, the label does not seem to say whether it was raised with hormones or without; we just don't know. Could there be a way of doing that on the label? Perhaps they do it in other places, but I have never seen it at home.

[Darcy Fitzgerald]

Yes, there are specific products on the shelf, and some retailers’ products indicate that. Free from the use of hormones would be a program. But to be properly labelled, the labelling would have to also designate that it's like all pigs raised in Canada. None of those marketed pigs contain any hormones, other than the natural hormones that all animals contain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Madam Raynault.

We will now move to Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Getting back to Mr. Atamanenko's question about investor protection and ability for other countries to sue us if there's a perceived infraction, you folks will agree that when you're signing a trade deal with another country you always sign a reciprocal type of trade deal wherein we have as much protection as they do and the onus is on both parties to work within the terms that were set out in the trade agreement.

Certainly I don't think Canada would want to enter into any international trade agreements with other countries without that protection and be prepared to give it to their trading partners as well. It's part of good business.

I guess I'm guilty. I didn't know that hogs didn't have growth hormones and I've been eating pork for decades. I wonder how many people there are like me in Canada who don't know that, but it tastes pretty good anyway.

Getting to the pending trade deal, as I'm sure you'll agree, Canada is looked upon by other countries as a pretty good country. We have a Canadian brand on our beef and pork products that we should be thinking about marketing. I know to promote that marketing plan is more probably in the ballpark of the processors, if there's going to be a Canadian brand marketed, but I think that would be a tremendous tool to use in the selling of our beef and pork and other products into the EU market. I'm assuming that the marketing people are already working on that and the economists have told them that if we want to be successful they had better be thinking about a lot of things, including that.

I wanted to ask about the producers themselves. I know the livestock goes to the processors and then it's in their hands and both pork and beef eventually gets over to Europe under this agreement. The processors will be negotiating the price they are going to be selling it at. What's going to be the increased benefit to the producers themselves? There's a thought that the processors are making all the money and the farmers and ranchers are doing all the work to get these cows into the processing plants. What do you see as a real benefit to increasing the income of the producers themselves, as opposed to the processors in the beef and pork industry?

[Bryan Walton]

It's the competition, competition and choice. Right now the differential between Canadian and U.S. pricing for feedlot cattle is called the basis. The wider the basis the less benefit to the producer. Competition can help narrow that basis.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Are you saying that the competition from the European market—

[Bryan Walton]

It's the competition from others who will bid for that market.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay. How do we believe that the processors will pass on that extra income to the producers?