Andy Mitchell

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, yes, we need to have an early meeting. As I mentioned, shortly after being sworn in I met with the UPA and Mr. Pellerin and had a very frank discussion about the issues in Quebec. I have met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada, which of course has a significant number of members in the province. I have met on numerous occasions with the minister and we will continue to do that.

I believe the hon. member and myself have a meeting scheduled very shortly to talk about these issues. I look forward to that and to the progress that the two of us can make together.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I will not speculate on how long it will take us to develop a particular solution but I understand there is a different challenge that is faced by some of the industry. I am committed to working with the industry that is affected by that. I am committed to working with the province of Quebec and other provinces that face the same issue. I am committed to making sure those parts of the program that we announced which are applicable are tailored in a way that makes sense in Quebec and in other areas that face those particular challenges.

If we do need to do things differently, if we do need to take a different approach, I will go into those discussions with a very open mind and one bottom line, to take actions that will be effective in helping producers.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member asked a couple of questions and I will make a couple of comments.

I think all members of the House will agree, and I certainly do, that agriculture in Canada is different in different parts and in different regions of the country. That is one of the reasons I suspect that constitutionally it is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments.

One of the commitments I made very clearly at the federal-provincial conference that took place recently in Prince Edward Island was my willingness to work with my provincial counterparts in a way that would allows us to deal with the specific issues in different regions.

We need to understand that although we have national objectives, although we understand that it is important to achieve national results, we need to understand that oftentimes how we achieve those results may be different in different regions depending on the reality and on the challenges those particular regions face. I made that commitment to my 10 provincial colleagues and they were very accepting and very appreciative of that and very willing to work under those circumstances, including the minister from Quebec.

The hon. member is quite right. There is programming that is designed in some respects at fed and feeder cattle, cow-calf operations as well, and that the industry is larger in other parts of Canada than it is in Quebec.

In Quebec though there are specific issues that I will not say are unique to Quebec, but are very predominant in Quebec. The member points those out quite well.

I have met with Mr. Pellerin. I have met with the UPA. I have met with my provincial counterparts. As I mentioned, I have met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada. They have outlined some of those challenges. She also talked about the issue of the cull cow. She talked about the reality of the decline in price and the need to deal with that.

A number of suggestions have been made. Obviously, with the closure of the U.S. border, the ability to have greater capacity to deal with cull cows is essential. It has been pointed out, and I think with some justification, that it is not just simply a matter of capacity. It is a matter that the capacity be increased in the context of a competitive environment so there is the ability to compete back and forth so the price will find an appropriate level in the marketplace. That is one potential solution.

The idea of a floor price has been mentioned. I have indicated my willingness to look at any proposed solution. However I will be very straightforward with the hon. member. I would prefer a solution that could see the marketplace itself deliver on the appropriate price rather than having to have direct intervention into that marketplace.

I think it is possible to do but, as I have said, I will meet with the Quebec industry--dairy is beyond Quebec and so the industry that we need to deal with is beyond Quebec--and see the type of solutions we can come up with to make the effective gains for producers that the hon. member is talking about.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the hon. member on her maiden speech in the House. I recall making my own first speech and I know there are butterflies when one does that.

Let me make a couple of points and then ask a question. In terms of the increased slaughter capacity, there are two components to what we are trying to do and both of them are critically important. The member may not totally appreciate the approach that we are trying to take here.

On the one side we are trying to ensure that the regulatory process surrounding the approval of new slaughter capacity is enhanced so that it can happen more quickly. We are providing a single window so that those applicants are not spending a good amount of their time running around to different government departments and agencies, but rather that they can get it all in one place. Then of course, once we put new capacities on line, if we do not have the ability to inspect, it is of very little use to us, so it is also important to provide that.

In terms of the loan loss reserve, the idea is not that it is simply $38 million. By constructing it as a loan loss reserve, where a portion of every advance will be made by the private sector, this government is not trying to decide who has or has not a good business plan. We are allowing the private sector to do the due diligence.

The idea is that the $38 million can lever at a rate of three or four to one. As I mentioned in the announcement, it should be able to result in between $140 million and $150 million of new investments. These are instruments that have been used in the past quite successfully and we have seen that kind of leverage occur in the past.

I have a question for the hon. member. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association was an integral part of the development of this proposal. Mr. Eby, who is the president of that association, has said very clearly in the announcement that he felt that this was clearly the right thing to do. He indicated the importance of working with the provinces and ensuring that we have a common platform for delivery, which we are in the process of doing to ensure that we have an efficient program that will work effectively.

Mr. Eby was with me at the press conference when we announced this. He was very supportive of it. Does the hon. member think that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is incorrect in its support of this program and the design that it put forward, which we have basically adapted in this proposal? Is she uncomfortable with the CCA position or does she think it is appropriate?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the Leader of the Opposition and I have had this exchange indirectly before. We did it through the media. I understand that the member has his views, which I do not share by the way, in terms of his analysis of the cause of the problem, that it is all an issue of saying bad things about the Americans. I do not believe that is the cause of the problem.

We have substantive issues, real issues, that face our producers. Although I said, and I will live with it, that there would be a great deal of rhetoric here tonight, and indeed there was, I have very specific questions.

In the BSE recovery program that was announced on September 10, there were four components. I would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition which of those components he would disagree, or perhaps agree, with. To recap, they are: first, to work toward opening the U.S. border; second, to build new slaughter capacity; third, to manage the flow of cattle into that slaughter capacity to bring balance to the marketplace; and fourth, to work toward expanding marketplaces beyond the United States through a number of measures, many of them on the regulatory side, but some of them on the marketing side.

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition could put forward his views on those four specific initiatives, I would appreciate it.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, first, regarding the member's opening comments, I agree. Quite clearly, there is no scientific reason why cattle should not have access to the United States.

Second, I believe that the increase of slaughter capacity is essential. I also agree with him about his issues about concentration and that is why the program we put in place is designed and targeted for medium and small sized enterprises.

Several colleagues have talked to me about the situation in western Quebec and northeastern Ontario. Perhaps there are some opportunities to work in conjunction with those two regions, which I think would make perfectly good sense. I am sure the hon. member would agree.

The suggestion in regard to floor price has been brought forward in many respects. It is something to take a look at. If we are able though to create a competitive situation within the slaughter industry, then I think that would be an ideal solution for dealing with the issue about which the member is talking.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it was great to go to the reception and meet the young people. It is important for the future that they see an opportunity in the industry to remain there. That is why I said earlier in my comments, when we strip it all away and get rid of all the complexities, how important it is to ensure that producers can be profitable. It is important that people see they can have an economic future for themselves and for their families so they will continue in the industry. It is important for themselves, yes, and important for their families and for their communities, but it is important for all of the country.

I will talk about the dates. I am not trying to avoid that. I am trying to cover all of the member's points. There have been intensive discussions in the last three days between officials of my department and of the provinces, including Alberta, to try to work out what the best date would be. Those meetings were still ongoing as of a couple of hours ago. My directions to officials, and I have said this to the minister from Alberta, is to find a way quickly to make this program work. In many respects I believe we need to be guided by those in the industry themselves. They are the ones whose knowledge and experience I would be counting on in order to provide advice as to what would be the most appropriate date. We are looking very closely at that and we will arrive at a conclusion that makes sense for the industry and for the viability of the program that we are putting in place.

Finally, as we say, the issue is holding them back and setting them aside. The issue of ownership during that process is something that was also part of those discussions, but the key point is keeping them out of the slaughter process, regardless of where the ownership may be at any one particular time.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, first , part of it will depend on the particular business proposal that comes forward.

The idea of using certain business models, such as a cooperative model, something similar to what is being used in Prince Edward Island, is one way to do it. Producers in Prince Edward Island have to buy what they call a hook, where they guarantee a flow of product to a particular regional slaughter facility.

One of the requirements of the loan loss reserve is that they are able to demonstrate that they have a business plan that is sustainable and that makes good business sense.

There is no question that when the border reopens there will be a market adjustment that takes place. However, I believe that given the experience that has taken place and which our producers have been through, given the creativity and determination of our industry and given the initiatives that we have undertaken as part of the package that we announced in September, we will be able to create that slaughter capacity. We then can ensure, as much as we want and will enjoy the expanded international markets, that we create an industry which also has the capacity to process more of its product here and which allows us to have the opportunity as a Canadian industry to ship and sell processed beef.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the member is absolutely right. We need to use state of the art technology in traceability. It is important for us, particularly in respect of obtaining access to those foreign markets. We need to be able to demonstrate what I believe is the reality: that we have the safest beef supply anywhere in the world.

Having a top of the line traceability system just adds more evidence to the fact that this is the reality in Canada. It is important to be able to demonstrate that to the world. Part of the initiative for Prince Edward Island would be to create something that is state of the art, a model that can be used anywhere.

My colleague is quite right. When we talk about building capacity, part of the initiatives we put forward is an effort to target medium-sized and smaller operations. Many of the big investors are quite capable of achieving, all on their own, the necessary dollars they need. It is the medium-sized and smaller operations that oftentimes need the assistance and it is toward them we tend to put our efforts.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I am hopeful--and, as I said, working with the industry--that the combination of items we are putting in place will work toward returning the industry to profitability.

I said on September 10, and I said earlier in the House, that my objective is to see that our producers are profitable. I think it is important to ensure that profitability with or without access to the U.S. market, as preferable as it is to have that access to the U.S. market, which we will continue to do.

The hon. member did not say it directly in her question but I know that it is an important issue. As I have said, there are regional variations across Canada. The challenges faced by Quebec producers are in many respects unique and it is important to deal with that.

I have met with my colleague, the Quebec minister of agriculture, by phone or in person on six occasions. We have had lengthy discussions. I met with the UPA and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. We have had some very frank discussions about some of the specific issues facing Quebec.

Many of the initiatives put forward on September 10 certainly do apply in Quebec, but I am very cognizant of the fact that there are some specific realities, some that face the dairy industry. That is not just in Quebec; there are a lot of dairy operators in other parts of the country. I think it is essential that we deal with those specific challenges as well.