Evidence of meeting #149 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Director, Government and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
No.
We got the no, and then we wondered how we can....
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
10:35 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
10:35 a.m.
Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are six minutes left in the meeting. We're adjourning at 10:45 a.m., I assume.
10:40 a.m.
Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
Thank you.
I think it's a really important issue that the committee is studying, but I'm skeptical about the government's announced plans for regulatory reform. I think it's an important issue, because we're slipping in global competitiveness rankings, business investment in Canada is plummeting and the regulatory burden on Canadian business is increasing. We now rank lower in the charts for regulatory burden, somewhere in the mid- to high-30s now out of 140-plus countries.
I'm skeptical too because we've had these initiatives over many years, and they never seem to go anywhere. I remember the smart regulation initiative of 2004. Then we had the Harper-Obama establishment of the Regulatory Cooperation Council, to which you referred, and then the more recent cabinet directive, in the fall economic update announcements, on regulatory reform.
On the ground, however, I hear quite the opposite. I hear from the cattlemen that they're very concerned about the upcoming CFIA regulations on transport of cattle and about front-of-package labelling. I consistently hear from seed producers about the barriers to innovation and also about the whole concern about use of seeds linked to biocides and the like, an area in which you have federal and provincial regulations now causing real challenges for grains and oilseeds farmers in the country, particularly in Ontario.
I'd be interested to hear from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association about these challenges. We've had this Regulatory Cooperation Council, and one of the express purposes for which it was established was to come forward with consistent package labelling standards.
We seem to be going down divergent paths now, so that's one issue I'd like to hear about. This whole thing was created expressly to not go down that path.
The other thing the council was supposed to do was come up with consistent grading standards for both Canada and the United States so that we wouldn't have different nomenclature for grading south of the border and north of the border. It was also supposed to come out with standard package sizing so that processors could ship product both north and south.
What's happening on those three things: labelling, packaging and nomenclature?
10:40 a.m.
Director, Government and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
I agree with you that there have been many initiatives over the years. We've always been supportive of the initiatives, and when something is renamed we will continue to be supportive of their continuing to try.
You gave a good list, and we've always had a good long list of issues under those initiatives. Probably our biggest one is trying to eliminate the reinspection of meat that is exported to the United States. The challenge, I would say, is not a lack of trying on the part of the Canadian regulators. I think they do a good job of trying to get it, but on every one of these issues there is somebody who doesn't want to change, often on the U.S. side.
For example, concerning the issue of reinspecting meat at the border, that is done at a place called an I-house. These I-houses are independently owned by entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs who own the I-houses have a vested interest in the inefficiency continuing. They lobby hard to make sure the rule isn't changed.
On issues such as meat grading, there are elements in the United States who see being able to use the USDA grade as a protectionist effort. It is just a measure of the quality: Is it prime? Is it choice? Is it select? They have viewed it in the United States as being almost their intellectual property. It means that it's U.S. product, and they have fought hard to keep that.
We lose value thereby. The packers will tell you that the American consumer does not know what Canada prime or Canada AAA means. If it shows up in a U.S. store, even if Canada AAA is equivalent to USDA choice, the American consumer doesn't know what it means and will devalue that product. It is frustrating.
As I said, we remain positive. We'll keep pitching and at some point we'll able to make progress on these things, but it is frustrating.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
I want to thank everybody for coming in today.
Mr. Biln, I know it's early in British Columbia, but farmers do get up early.
Thank you, everybody. We'll see you on Thursday.
The meeting is adjourned.
