Industry Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Is it labour mobility we're talking about primarily?

[Robert Fairholm]

It's labour mobility, flow of goods, capital mobility. No barriers—

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Interprovincial barriers--

[Robert Fairholm]

—to people, capital, or goods and services would be helpful. That would be a major step forward. We still have too many internal barriers within Canada.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Good. Thank you very much.

I'm now just at the halfway point, I hope, so I'll go to Mr. Rice.

First of all, I spent the first 10 years of my working career in food production. I've always attested to the high quality of our Canadian--and, in my case, Ontario--pork and lamb products. They were always, and they continue to be, the best in the world, as far as I'm concerned.

In regard to what's happening, I've had constituents meet with me in my own offices in central Ontario about the scenario in Ontario. Because of the large size of the southern Ontario...the greater ethnicity and the makeup of the southern Ontario market, the demand for pork is in fact going up substantially, to the point where the message I got was that Ontario producers couldn't keep up with that. In fact, some pork was having to come back into Ontario to fill that demand.

In the sense that we're exporting a lot of our product if you look at the national context, is there some opportunity to have some balance of that coming back in to meet demand in Ontario as opposed to having to import more? If I have that scenario incorrect, please go ahead and correct me.

[Martin Rice]

I certainly wouldn't say you're incorrect, because there are substantial imports and they've increased considerably. Our imports were about 30,000 tonnes, I think, maybe five years ago, and this year they will probably be 170,000 tonnes. Now, I wouldn't say that this is an indicator of....

Well, because of some of these cost challenges, we right now are seeing a greater export of live animals. We are seeing our own processing plants, which went through some of their tough times a year or so ago, unable to bid as much as their U.S. counterparts. Over time, we are making adjustments in our costs to live with a 90¢ dollar, as I think everyone's assuming it will be. Maybe we'll have to live with a dollar; I know that Maple Leaf has restructured to assume roughly par. But it does take time to change labour agreements, etc.

There is definitely an opportunity for import replacement. I mentioned the Costco situation, where they buy only U.S. Well, that's certainly not a law; it's a case of us having to maybe refocus some of our marketing efforts towards domestic marketing and take advantage of this indeed deep consumer preference for pork products.

Thank you.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

It seems to be growing, yes.

I have a little more time, so I'll go back to Mr. Fairholm.

In the overall picture, when we're talking about the strengthening of the dollar against the U.S., it's been one of the many things our economy has been faced with. If you look back over the last decade--at the Asian equity meltdown, at the tech bubble--it just seems that every two or three years some big thing affects our economy, and for the most part it's out of our control.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The question, please.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Do you agree with Canada's approach in terms of concentrating on economic fundamentals as opposed to robust, interventionist-type programs in the economy?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just briefly, Mr. Fairholm.

[Robert Fairholm]

Well, I was trained as an economist, so yes, I believe that the market should work and that there shouldn't be a lot of intervention in the marketplace.

Making markets work better provides dividends now and into the future. Ways to reduce the natural rate of unemployment would also benefit the economy enormously. When we're at 33-year lows for the unemployment rate, adjustments to encourage people to work are beneficial. Ways to help people transition to other jobs are beneficial.

We'll always have shocks. It's how we deal with those shocks that matters. Repositioning our labour and our capital to make the best of our situation is the way to go. You can't stop the world from revolving.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Stanton.

I apologize for the shortness of the time. It was very compressed today. We'd certainly love to have you back at a future date. If there's anything further you want to submit for the members, please do so through the clerk.

In particular, Mr. Rice, I don't have time for questions, but you mentioned a few items: the increase in imports, where it's from, Costco buying only U.S. pork. If you'd like to submit some of the facts on items like those to the committee, we'd certainly appreciate that.

Thank you very much for being here with us today.

[Martin Rice]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members, we will suspend for a couple of minutes and then go directly to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, members.

We have a few items to deal with. We have a motion from Madame Brunelle. We have a motion from Mr. Brison. We'd like to adopt the study budgets, which I'm sure we can do quite quickly. And if we have time, we'll get to the second report of the subcommittee on future business.

We talked about an amendment at the last meeting when we were discussing Madame Brunelle's motion. We could begin there. I don't know if it was formally moved, but there was discussion on it. Perhaps either Mr. McTeague or Mr. Brison can explain the amendment to Madame Brunelle's motion.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

The amendment would simply remove all the qualifications after the words “manufacturing sectors”. It would read:

That the Committee recommend to the government, in view of the serious crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, that it implement without delay an improved assistance plan for the forestry and manufacturing sectors; and that the adoption of this motion be reported back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Before moving the motion, I believeMr. Carrie would like to make a change at the end of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So your amendment is to remove “including $500 million” right until “the size of their forestry industry”.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

That's correct.

Mr. Carrie would like to make a comment at the end, which we will support.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We'd like to move a subamendment. Instead of saying “and that the adoption of this motion be reported back to the House at the earliest opportunity”, we would replace it with “while remaining consistent with our international commitments”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There's an amendment and a subamendment, so we will have debate on the subamendment.

Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I would like to move another subamendment, Mr. Chair.

I would like to add, after "forestry and manufacturing sectors": "to be administered by Quebec and the provinces and allocated among them based according to the size of their forestry industry; and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity".

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just so I understand, you're suggesting we leave in “to be administered by Quebec and the provinces and allocated among them based according to the size of their forestry industry”.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's more debate over Mr. McTeague's amendment, so we'll have you make that argument when we debate Mr. McTeague's amendment.

The debate now is on the subamendment, which would remove, “and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity”. Mr. Carrie's subamendment is to remove that and to replace it with “while remaining consistent with our international commitments”.

What we're doing now is debating that subamendment.

Go ahead, Mr. McTeague.