Evidence of meeting #4 for Subcommittee on Food Safety in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was health.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you for being here today. It is a pleasure to have you. I am an MP from Quebec. I would like to ask your opinion on an international matter, specifically, what is currently happening with the Doha round at the WTO.
In your country, you chair an agriculture committee, so you are in a good position to tell us how your farm producers feel about what is going on at the WTO. We know that the main reason that talks have broken down is agriculture. The director general of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, is still trying to get the talks back on track, but it is not going well.
In Australia, are people talking about how food products should not be considered simple commodities? By that, I do not mean that we should put a stop to all international trade. We are very happy to sell our pork, our maple syrup and our beef to others. A farm producer's first role is to feed the people at home, without shutting the door to other countries. But we wonder whether agriculture should be given special status during these talks. I know it is not quite the same thing, but every country's culture is not considered a commodity. Are producers and politicians having similar discussions in your country?
6 p.m.
Senator, Senate of Australia
Thank you very much.
In Australia we are very concerned about the failure of the Doha Round, but from my perspective...and bear in mind I am not in the government, but I am chairing a select committee. I was in the previous government, but I am well connected in the present government. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the committee that I chair has never had a dissenting report, because we are not in the business of playing politics with people's livelihoods.
Doha has very many complexions, and you would have to say that you would go into it with a conservative outlook on the outcome. When you have players like China in the market, which has a non-market currency, it now has the capacity with sovereign risings to go into the market and buy other people's sovereignty, which is an issue for us in Australia. They're wanting to buy into Rio Tinto for the sovereign funding, much the same way as we have an approach in Australia today from the United Emirates to buy, in a big way with a sovereign fund, into some of our agricultural land.
Now, we are of the view that the global food task has to be modelled by the planet, because you can't eat dividends. There are some complexities, and there are certainly many distortions in the market for a number of reasons, and Australia is sometimes accused of distorting the market through its acquisitions via security barriers for entry. Your beef would be one, with the BSE barrier that we've put up. Australia is clean, green, and free of foot and mouth, BSE, and most major diseases.
We have an issue at the present time, for instance, with bananas. Our banana industry is free of disease. The Philippines are putting pressure on to bring bananas in. New Zealand is putting pressure on to bring apples in. We do not have fireblight disease. So these are the sorts of issues that are very much high in the minds of the Australian electorate, the Australian people, because we are essentially clean, green, and free.
We are almost first cousins with Canada, but we are, shall I say, not all that optimistic about Doha because of the major distortions in the market. A free market issue...you're from Quebec, you have a confined market situation with poultry, pork and dairy. That's a decision for your government and your people. We have an open market. We have serious problems at the present time with the carbon trading principles of the future. I couldn't get today an answer out of your ministry on whether agriculture is going to be in or out of the carbon system. We can't get an answer from our government, and the opposition...we're not too sure what to do either. But I can tell you that at $17 a tonne, every irrigated dairy farmer in Australia is insolvent; at $40 a tonne, 35% of the production costs of beef is the tax. These are pretty serious issues.
I'd love to have half a day here to have a yarn with you all. I could give you my pure and full thoughts, but I don't have the time today.
6 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you.
Mr. Allen, have you a question in regard to their study on competition?
6 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
I think it ties in.
Folks always say, when they come to a new country, do you know so and so? Well, when you get back, if you happen to get to Wagga Wagga, say hello to my cousin.
6 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
His name is Chris Salmon. He's a retired colonel from the Australian army. So if you happen to bump into him, say hi.
In any case, you talked a little bit about this competition area, and you talked about being free and green in Australia. Does the government have what we would call a food security policy in the sense of a secure food supply for Australians, ensuring that Australians are able to be self-sustaining, besides the export piece, in most of the things they need?
One of the things you talked about is a threat to sovereignty. No doubt, that's about folks who are unable to feed themselves perhaps coming through the northern boundary of Australia, which of course would present some difficulties. Has the Australian government developed a policy around that, or is it looking at that as part of this?
6 p.m.
Senator, Senate of Australia
I would say that up until this point, generally the public have taken food supply as a given, and as a result, politicians and governments have taken food supply as a given. What we're trying to come to terms with is, what is the plan over a hundred years for Australia? Given that there is some science around it, whether you avoid the science or not is not the issue; it's what you're going to do about it. If there's a thing there and the doctor says, “That's a melanoma, son, you'd better get it off”, you'd either get it off or get a second opinion. You wouldn't ignore it. I think that's where Australia is.
I have to say we don't have a strategic, tucked-away food supply. Obviously we need to be conscious of that. This committee is looking at providing advice not only to the government but also to the public, because it's with full public awareness that politicians get the courage to make decisions--if they think they can get themselves past the next election.
We want to look beyond elections. As I say, Mr. Chairman, our committee consists of all the colours and persuasions of politics, and we've never had a dissenting report. As you know, if you don't eat, you don't do something else, and if you don't do that, you die.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Heffernan, were you one of the folks who were strongly in favour of deregulation of your Wheat Board?
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Some of us would like to see some freedom here in Canada as well. We're stuck with a system right now that really lends itself to bulk handling. Farmers are being denied opportunities for IP products, niche marketing, those kinds of things. You've opened it up.
Do your farmers have more choice now? Do they have more opportunity?
6:05 p.m.
Senator, Senate of Australia
They certainly have, but the timing has been unfortunate. It was a tough year, our first year of deregulation. You have a Wheat Board similar to ours. I don't know whether your Wheat Board has a government guarantee.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Senator, Senate of Australia
Our Wheat Board didn't have a guarantee. The really profound farmers who can remember the 1920s—that generation, rather than the generation of zero-tillage type farmers—were very much against losing the single-desk wheat marketing.
The AWB actually created another desk. There were two sides to AWB, Mr. Chairman. There was the pool, which is the farmers' wheat, then there was a trading arm through Geneva. Well, it was turning out that the trading arm through Geneva was doing more trading, buying wheat from the pool and taking the profit and putting it in the shareholders, because it became a public company. We thought that was unsustainable.
The market is now deregulated. We have something like seven companies that have export licences in a pretty tough economic circumstance. One of the things that the Wheat Board discovered once we took away the single desk is that to get bank guarantees without the government guarantee, it was very difficult to handle the total crop. They were probably pleased to be relieved of the responsibility.
I think it's a great hurdle to jump. It was a very passionate debate. There were farmers holding up placards and yelling, etc. The new-age farmer who goes on the computer every day.... Some of our farmers got too new age and got stuck with currency positions and forward sales, and I have to say that the Wheat Board itself lost $230 million in one trade on the futures.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Senator, Senate of Australia
Philosophically, these are difficult issues. The breakup in Australia was that the Australian Labour Party, which is now the government, was in favour of deregulation. The Liberal Party, which is not the equivalent of the Liberal Party here—we're a bit more conservative than your Liberal Party—was in favour of it. The National Party, as a badge of honour, as a minority in Parliament, was in favour of keeping the Australian Wheat Board.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Our problem is that the one party that's elected in that part of the area consistently supports deregulation, but we're stopped by parties from other parts of the country that won't allow us to have that deregulation.
6:05 p.m.
Senator, Senate of Australia
Anyhow, I didn't come here to debate the single desk--
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The farmers in Canada voted pro single desk. Those are the facts, and the member knows that.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay, this isn't a Wheat Board debate.
Mr. Heffernan, usually the committee doesn't get partisan at all.
6:05 p.m.
Senator, Senate of Australia
I love them to get a bit passionate. Come on, give it to me.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Time is moving along. We do have some other witnesses coming.
We are going to break just so that members can grab some lunch, and then we're going to proceed.
Mr. Heffernan, I really appreciate your being here today. In fact, I'm glad you contacted me today at short notice and I'm glad the committee took the time to hear you. I think it's very important to hear where you're going down there.
I will just say one thing. We'll try to say that your presence here today was a favour, and a favour in return is that if you could open up the Australian border to Canadian beef, we'd be very happy.
Thank you very much for being here.