:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of Chicken Farmers of Canada, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to share our views with you on the issues affecting competitiveness of all Canadian agriculture. Our chairman, David Fuller, sends his regrets that he wasn't able to make it up to Ottawa this morning. I will pinch-hit as I can.
Chicken Farmers of Canada is a national organization funded through producer levies. Our primary responsibility is to ensure that those 2,800 farmers produce the right amount of safe, fresh, high-quality chicken to meet consumer needs. In terms of the economic impact of our industry, we generate $9.5 billion in economic activity. Our farm cash receipts are $1.8 billion a year, and we directly employ, on farms and in processing plants, 19,000 Canadians, plus sustain over 50,000 people through spin-off industries.
In 2007, chicken production passed the one billion kilogram mark, and we also contribute to the success of grain and oilseed farmers by purchasing 2.4 million tonnes of feed annually, worth over $800 million.
Strong leadership and proactive strategies will always play an integral part in the ongoing competitiveness and success of our industry.
[Translation]
I am not following everything according to the document.
[English]
In terms of competitiveness, as defined by Agriculture Canada, it's “a sustained ability to profitably gain and maintain market share in the domestic and/or export market”. For the Canadian chicken industry, we compete against imported chicken, mainly from the United States and Brazil, and we compete against all other meats—our prime competitors are pork and beef—for the share of the Canadian meat consumption market.
In terms of the imports and competing against imports of chicken from outside of Canada, I need to underscore that Canada is not a closed market for chicken. In fact, the 33 million Canadians are the twelfth largest consumers of imported chicken in the world. So that's a big statement for 33 million people. But what we need to run our effective supply-managed system is a predictable level of imports so that we can produce the right amount of chicken. We undertake to import that chicken. We don't come up with phony science or other measures to block those imports that are negotiated at the WTO, but we produce to our portion of the market. I think it's easy to say that's not consistent across the globe.
Where it becomes important is at WTO negotiations, and we have absolutely appreciated the support of the government and all parties for supply management at the WTO. However, the current draft--that is of December, the draft modalities text--cannot, in our view, be the basis of the negotiations of a deal. For us, sensitive products are the key. The text right now does not allow for enough tariff lines to cover all supply management products. It would require us to cut our over-quota tariffs by a minimum of 23%, and up to 70% if we don't get rid of the tariff cap. And on top of that, we would have to provide another 4% to 6% of duty-free access inside of that.
Another issue on the import side comes when we put in place the Uruguay Round. Canada's the only country where a product that's 87% chicken is not deemed to be chicken. So add 13%, some rice or some stuffing and some other vegetables, and all of a sudden that escapes the tariff. So we really do need a change to this rule so that we don't erode the market for chicken. I think you've looked at things like that around labelling to cover off that type of thing already.
We also are very pleased and proud of the on-farm programs and the work that we do to maintain high-quality chicken in Canada. We're the first to have an on-farm food safety program recognized by CFIA. In 2009 we're rolling out our animal care program, which has the support of both the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.
These measures are a must to maintain consumer confidence, but they come at a cost that's fully borne by the industry. So our request here is that both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canadian Border Services Agency ensure that imports meet the same standards that Canadian domestically produced chicken must meet. You have a subcommittee on food safety that's looking at some things, and this is a key element in terms of that.
One recent note of concern in terms of CFIA and looking at that is the plan to stop pre-market labour approval for all meat imports. This means that products can be on store shelves before they're approved by CFIA. We're not prepared to take that risk and jeopardize the confidence in our system by allowing that to happen.
On the new market access secretariat that was announced by Minister Ritz in January 2009, we've had some good discussions on that with government. The clear focus here is on technical barriers to trade. In our view, it has to look at them from both the export side and the import side. What we're not looking for is a watering down of what we have in Canada to meet other countries but ensuring, on a science base, that they meet the requirements that we have here.
As the Canadian market accounts for 70% of what we produce and process across all of agriculture, it's critical that a strong domestic market be the foundation for competitiveness for all of Canadian agriculture.
In terms of those technical barriers to trade, however, we had avian influenza positive tests on two farms in the Fraser Valley in January. We also had this in 2004. Mexico has maintained a ban for the past five years. It seems a little strange, though it isn't a market that is of a lot of importance to us. However, two markets that are currently closed and that are key to our marketing are the Philippines and Taiwan. Many other countries have looked at what we've been doing to contain these incidents, and their bans are getting, actually, very restrictive now, and are down to a 3- or 10-kilometre range. We appreciate that kind of thing rather than just a blanket ban on Canada.
On the competitive meat side, overall consumption of meat has been fairly consistent in the last 10 years in Canada, hovering around 95 to 96 kilograms per person. Chicken consumption has steadily increased. There was actually quite strong growth up until the start of this decade. It has been flatter since then. However, in 2005 chicken overtook beef as the most consumed meat in Canada for the first time, and it has maintained that leadership level.
Probably the biggest challenge for us in the last two years has been the oversupply of meat in North America in terms of chicken, pork, and beef across both sides of the country. We've been cutting back production since last July to try to bring profitability back to our processors, who haven't been able to maintain a sustainable wholesale price because of, frankly, distressed pricing in the U.S. in the chicken industry.
There has also been a fair amount of liquidation of both cattle and hog inventories. We thought we were about to break out of this, but we understand the U.S. is looking at a dairy cow cull program now for 2009 because there are too many dairy cows there. That's, once again, going to put a lot more pressure on all the meat commodities in North America.
The last point I want to talk about is an issue that affects the competitiveness of the whole meat complex, and that's feed prices. There's a chart in the presentation on the last page that shows how closely feed prices track the cost of producing chicken. Feed is the single most expensive input we have in our production. We have witnessed what I would call a skyrocketing pricing of feed since 2007. And frankly, while 2005 may not be a legitimate area--because grains and oilseed producers have to make money, and they certainly didn't in those years--there has to be a good equilibrium point.
We need to take a closer look at alternative fuel legislation. Corn is our big feed source. It is the key user for ethanol. We need to look at alternative fuels, which are probably cellulosic-based, other than corn because that directly impacts us.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, competitiveness for the Canadian chicken industry is measured in our ability to compete with imported chicken and with domestic and imported beef and pork for the share of consumers in our chosen marketplace.
In our view, in order to be competitive, the Canadian chicken industry needs a WTO agreement that preserves an effective supply management system. We need changes to the 13% rule so that imported chicken does not circumvent our tariff rate quota system. We need strict enforcement by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency of import standards so that we don't undermine consumer confidence in what we're producing. We require government recognition that the domestic market is the foundation for the success of all Canadian agriculture and provides that springboard for success in export markets. And we need policies that deliver feed prices that do not drive meat out of consumer diets.
Thank you.
Good morning. Bonjour. Thank you for your invitation to appear before you today. We greatly appreciate the committee's interest in and commitment to the beef industry in our great country. We hope that our presentation will answer many of your questions outlined in the letter of invitation, but we also look forward to answering your individual questions to the best of our abilities.
The Ontario Cattlemen’s Association represents 19,000 beef producers in the province of Ontario. Our vision is to help foster a sustained and profitable beef industry and have Ontario beef recognized as an outstanding product by our consumers.
The Ontario beef industry is very important to our economy. Beef farming is carried out in every county and district in Ontario. By investing in the Ontario beef industry, the government is investing in the families, businesses, and communities in Ontario, both urban and rural. The income and employment derived from our industry helps support a broad range of rural infrastructure such as hospitals and schools. Beef farms create jobs in rural communities, from feed supply stores to grocery stores, as well as supporting employment in packing plants and further processing in urban areas.
In a study entitled The Economic Impact of the Ontario Cattle and Beef Sector, published by the Department of Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics of the University of Guelph, it was shown that the economic impacts arising from the Ontario beef industry are approximately the equivalent to the economic impacts of adding an automobile assembly plant. Your government recognizes the effect that a decline in the automotive sector has had on our economic health. It should also realize that the decline in agriculture sectors will have a similar negative effect.
The immediate problem affecting our ability to compete is the reduction in cattle numbers in areas of the country, and the immediate threat that places on the existing infrastructure and jobs, both urban and rural. The January 1 numbers published by Statistics Canada show that cattle on feed in Ontario have declined by 22% when compared to January 2003, which, as you know, was before BSE rocked our industry. Similarly, cows and heifers for breeding have declined by more than 17% over the same period.
Over the past year, our producers have fought to maintain their businesses while dealing with a combination of factors, including the newly implemented processing regulations, government ethanol programs and policy, lack of access to key markets, and high input costs. Many producers are questioning their future in the beef industry. I am sure you have heard this from your constituents.
We foresee our situation being further compromised due to the program announced last summer by Alberta unless immediate action is taken by the federal government. During times of volatile commodity prices, as we have seen over the past year, rapidly escalating farm input costs cannot be reflected in farm gate prices for beef in a timely manner due to the length of our production cycle.
Our recommendations to you fall into four categories: regulation, equalization between provinces, ethanol policy, and trade. In terms of specific regulations that are detrimental to our industry, one that began our basis slide is the enhanced feed ban. As I am sure you are aware, this outlines the requirements for removal and disposal of SRM materials. I know you have heard from others on the cost of this regulation. Depending on the plant, this can range from $10 per head to $80 per head for smaller provincially inspected plants.
While we recognize that we are moving into a new era of global supply chains, we must have protocols in place to open borders, not just to shut them. We accept that regulators are expected to devise systems that ensure the safety of the food we eat. We accept that there will be a movement to full traceability, likely within the next decade. However, you need to accept that we must harmonize our regulations with those of our largest trading partner, the United States. To do otherwise would place Canadian farmers in a position of permanent competitive disadvantage to our competitors. That can only lead to weakness and ruin.
Our regulations such as on the own use importation of veterinary drugs and the approval of pest control products are beginning to show some positive movement due to the response of the recommendations coming out of the Beef Value Chain Roundtable. It does not make sense to us that our competitors are allowed to use interventions that are not available to us.
We need to know why these approvals take so long. If there is an honest question concerning food safety with any of these products, then we ask why product produced with them in other countries is allowed to be imported into Canada.
Our second recommendation concerns the issue of equalization between provinces and the need for a national business risk management program that works. During recent meetings with our young producers, the number one need young farmers identified after the start-up loan program was a BRM program that works. More experienced beef farmers also identify that same need.
You must take action now. You cannot keep delaying. Producers across this country, except in Alberta, are desperately awaiting your help. If you do not have your own program to roll out, deliver the Alberta program to everyone. Also, make the changes to AgriStability that have been on the table for so long. Our requested changes to this program are as follows: offer the better of the Olympic and previous three-year average on reference margin calculation; eliminate the viability test; enhance reference margins; increase coverage to 70% of negative margins; allow producers the better of AgriStability tier one or AgriInvest; remove caps from AgriInvest and AgriStability.
These changes to the existing program could really help some people who deserve it. We request that you make these changes.
Our third area of recommendation is trade. Many products from our animals are not consumed here in Canada. Therefore we need to have commercially viable market access to maximize carcass value. This is a good measure to support the long-term health of our industry. We are pleased with the Government of Canada’s increased pressure in recent months to open international markets to Canadian beef. However, we continue to request that the Government of Canada launch a WTO challenge against the United States regarding mandatory country of origin labelling. COOL places a cost burden on packers and retailers that will be borne by the primary producer, equalling approximately $90 per head.
Our final recommendation concerns the long-term systemic negative effects that ethanol production policies have on our industry in Ontario. I would suggest that you have Al Mussell from the George Morris Centre come and present his findings to you. Al's original prediction is that if a counteracting policy is not put in place out there, feeding of cattle and hogs in Ontario will, over time, decline by 70%. That’s huge. It will of course destroy most of the infrastructure our industry currently has in place. This has very large implications for those of you who have seats in Ontario.
In summary, I see a great future for our industry. Farmers are having a little trouble finding the road to that future right now, but there is no doubt in my mind that demand for beef will climb as the world economy improves, and specifically as countries such as China and India develop their economies. The beef industry is good for our economy. We have the potential to expand our output of beef without significantly changing the capacity in Ontario. This could add about $400 million every year to value-added GDP and add about 6,000 good working jobs. When all is known, and when you see the trouble the auto industry is in, all parties should be paying attention to the opportunities agriculture has to help our economy.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this opportunity.
Bonjour. Hello.
My presentation will visit the area of competitive advantage through regulation and brand power.
The purebred seed stock industry, like the beef industry, has a global aspect. To be competitive, one needs the following: a product that excels, a market and a viable strategy to access it, and—most important—health certification that is accurate and irrefutable based on sound science.
Government has a role to play in all areas, but undoubtedly the most important role is health and health certification. All this together equals brand power and success. Flaws or erosion of any component puts this brand power at risk. Health certification is paramount and CFIA is entrusted with a cornerstone role. In 1985, Canada became the first nation in the world to eradicate brucellosis. That feat garnered respect, trust, and admiration for CFIA throughout the industry and around the world.
Once the bar is raised and new standards are set, backsliding is no longer an option. Vigilance, enforcement, checks and balances—all these play a role in maintaining the status quo. That is why checks and balances must be built into a system, and any breaches of established protocol must be dealt with openly and under a policy of full disclosure. For example, the policy of on-farm isolation and re-test of imports must be reinstated. It is cost-effective, especially in view of the fact that breaches in protocol often have serious financial implications. This provides a valuable check. When re-tests were discontinued on March 31, 1996, it took less than 100 days for CFIA to screw that one up.
For trust and respect at all levels to flourish, and to prevent erosion of Canadian agriculture brand power, we need third party overview. This would provide a known entry point to allow more industry input into CFIA operations. This office could also facilitate dialogue.
We need to be certain that CFIA is a positive influence in our lives and performs up to expectations.
Situations must be dealt with expeditiously to avoid downstream domino effects. Competitiveness and financial viability are at risk if mistakes are allowed to erode brand power and go unresolved. All Canadians need to be concerned.
CFIA must divest itself of its self-monitoring role, because the temptation is always there for cover-up. Having an independent third party doing the monitoring would raise the bar of health and certification. As it now stands, when errors or total screw-ups occur, CFIA has no one to answer to, and anyone injured by their mistakes has little recourse and virtually no access to government for restitution.
Canadian agriculture needs an ombudsman watchdog to take on these challenges, someone to strike a balance in the system, someone who has the power to get the answers and compensate for mistakes—past, present, and future. This ombudsman watchdog needs to be empowered to ensure fairness and expedience while maintaining a level of service equal to the respect and admiration of 1985 CFIA. We need a Sheila Fraser in overalls.
Ways must be found to right past wrongs and compensate those harmed by substandard service. Waiting for their collapse is not an option, nor is it the Canadian way.
As an individual who has suffered a devastating and debilitating blow to his business, I know first-hand how a CFIA meltdown in 1996, left unresolved, has devastated me and my family. To give you some insight into our situation, I start with an excerpt from the financial impact statement, written September 22, 1996, by Dr. Brian Keyes, veterinarian, Barrie, Ontario: “On July 8, 1996, Mr. Vancise imported four purebred Hereford bovine from the state of Kansas, U.S.A. The animals were certified by a USDA accredited veterinarian, and an appropriate certificate was endorsed by the USDA.” He goes on to say, “The testing and health requirements as outlined by Canada's Health of Animals Act/regulations for export to Canada was to have been fulfilled as per the certificate.”
This obviously didn't happen. The CFIA website states no vaccine is licensed and vaccination is not part of the disease control strategy for anaplasmosis in Canada. The import certificate states these cattle were vaccinated the 25th of November, 1995, for anaplasmosis.
Secondly, on the continuation sheet, paragraph four: “To the best of my knowledge anaplasmosis has not existed clinically or serologically in the herd of origin for two years preceding this exportation“. The health paper stated that on May 8th, one animal was tested positive on a composite fixation test with a one-in-ten dilution. When we went through our quarantine, a one-in-ten dilution positive was a death sentence.
I quote Dr. Keyes' letter of January 16, 2007:
If an animal is tested in the country of origin for a specific disease, it is inherent the animal is not vaccinated for this disease. Tuberculosis, anaplasmosis for cattle imported from the United States.
The answer is on page 12 of Oklahoma State University paper on Anaplasmosis (2003). Both live and killed vaccines rely on the field strain of A marginale. These vaccinations do not prevent persistent infection of A. Marginale although they prevent or reduce clinical disease. Persistent infections in cattle contribute to the further spread of A. Marginale because these cattle serve as a reservoir of infection for mechanical spread of the disease or as infection for ticks. Vaccinated cattle develop persistent infection that produce livelong immunity. Revaccination is usually not required. There was also a short 30 day T.B. test reported and the required time frame interval is 60 days.
This is where the problem started the time line shows how it unfolded. An appropriate check and balance in the system would be:
2 independent vet scrutinizers of the import certificate at port of entry and endorsed by both.
2- Retest upon arrival on farm quarantine.
The time line shows mid March 1996 I was given incomplete information on testing. It shows the health certificate was submitted a week ahead to CFIA border vet Dr. Jack Orange for his input and approval.
It shows 148 day quarantine – CFIA’s original estimate 7-10 days. It shows CFIA did not and would not quarantine for all four diseases. They would not test. They would not allow me to test.
My test done by Dr. Geiger in Michigan
--after the cattle were taken back to the States--
exposed the problem. CFIA’s sample I demanded they draw for reference was not even sent for testing until after the results on my test came back.
It shows no mitigation for Anaplasmosis until September 19, 1996 over 2 months in peak fly season.
--that's when they were ordered under a roof--
It shows the sensationalism that erupted in media and the area, population as two fairs could not hold their cattle shows.
However, the absolute hell and financial devastation over the last 13 years due to CFIA incompetence can never be totally portrayed. We had lived it every day and have struggled to pay a debt caused by CFIA’s incompetence. In June 1996 I had a preferred status with the bank, one I had enjoyed for 25 years. I had no machine debt or mortgages. By December of the same year, our cattle nearly worthless and our business devastated, that no longer was the case.
I ask this committee to get a committed date time for me to meet with Minister Ritz meets with me to develop a plan to resolve this situation and provide restitution based on forensic account.
I ask this committee to recommend changes to CFIA and AAFC based on this presentation.
I would like to see the office of Ombudsman/Watchdog for Agriculture established that can also facilitate access and dialog with CFIA and AAFC.
After nearly 13 years of hell, sooner would be best. Together we can achieve more.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dungate, in your presentation, you talked about poultry imports from the United States, and that topic was discussed at great length during the Annual General Assembly of the Éleveurs de volailles du Québec. This general assembly took place last week or the previous week. It was held very recently.
There is some concern in particular about these US imports. You also mentioned Brazil. According to the Quebec federation, American poultry imports have increased annually by about 25% for the past eight years. That is a tremendous amount!
We are told that the chicken coming in from the United States will be processed here and supposedly returned to the United States. However, we are wondering whether or not this chicken really is sent back to the United States. It is difficult to know exactly what happens with respect to transportation.
As for the Annual General Assembly of the Quebec Poultry Producers' Association, which was attended by the , I would like you to explain what he said exactly. Indeed, the minister was quoted in a media article on the file, where he said that the government was now looking at proteins rather than weight as that enabled them to have better control over the quantity of chicken imported from the United States.
I do not know whether or not you understand exactly what he meant, but I would like to hear your explanation. Obviously we should be asking him the question. That being said, I would like to understand exactly what that would mean.
When we talk about competitiveness, we must obviously deal with this situation even though we are protected by the supply management system. Today we can see that, in many countries, they are starting to take a serious look at the applications of the supply management system. However, in many cases, and not so long ago, there was an attempt to make it seem as though this supply management system no longer existed, to help with competitiveness, although there are still countries that want it.
However, there has been a reversal of this trend towards a supply management system. I am pointing this out because this is an interesting fact.
Despite the protection that you enjoy, there are some aspects that may be very worrisome for the competitiveness of your sector.
:
You're going to be able to test my French when I start talking about protein content.
First of all, we are not against the Import for Re-export Program that is now in place. We do, however, have some major concerns about it, in the way that it is applied and in the possibility that white meat may remain in the Canadian market, whereas something else is exported in order to meet the requirements of this program.
This problem pertains in particular to spent poultry, namely layers that have gone beyond their laying days and are now to be used for something else. We are concerned that the processors may be importing a high-quality product and replacing it with a non-quota product. There is no quota for spent poultry. There is perhaps some way to resolve this issue. That is what is concerning us.
Last year, as far as these two programs were concerned, one program pertaining to turkey and the other for chicken, and because of the drop in the American market, the turkey program fell by 47%. At the same time, even with a 9% reduction in US production, the Import for Re-export Program increased by 11% over the last year. Given the market conditions, this does not make sense.
We are therefore monitoring the situation very closely. I know that the Department of Foreign Affairs has done some follow-up, but I am not sure that it has the capacity to conduct evaluations in the slaughterhouses to know exactly which chickens are broilers and which are spent chickens.
With respect to protein, there is a way to assess it. Generally speaking, chicken contains 23% protein. If other things are added, such as soya protein or something else, the protein content in the chicken is lowered. So if we test a chicken and find that it has a protein content of 12%, that means that 50% of the proteins come from other ingredients that have been added to it. This is deemed to be a chicken suitable for export and meets the requirements of the Import for Re-export Program.
I hope that I have been clear.
:
I think we really have to visit what the root cause was. There's no doubt that we received the statutory compensation for the cattle ordered destroyed. That's under law. The 148-day quarantine literally destroyed our pastures and our management because it was a wet fall and everything was turned to mud. Our management has never totally recovered ever since, because instead of being able to sell cattle when we wanted to, we've been under the gun from the banks and everybody else down the line.
The moneys that we did receive were a statutory requirement that applies to all animals ordered slaughtered. By citing this as a reason for no further payment, the department has ignored our entire argument to the effect that the quarantine was made necessary due to CFIA accepting USDA procedures as evidence that the cattle had been properly tested. They should view this from the perspective that it's the CFIA's regulations, and the USDA must meet those regulations. Evidence exists on the certificate that this was not the case. Furthermore, I was utterly powerless to step between the USDA and the CFIA. I had no access to technology or expertise.
If you accept that, then everything that happened from the time of quarantine on down the line was a domino effect. We had no income for the last half of the year, and basically that is when we sell most of our cattle, so we really had very little income for the full year. We had about 460 head of cattle at that time, with plans to sell over 200 of them. It ended up that we were going into winter with the full load of cattle, which we couldn't handle, really, and we couldn't sell them.
Coming out the other side, because the cows were calving, etc., we had 750 head, but our reputation was destroyed in the process. It took years to try to rebuild that confidence, and I don't think we've ever quite achieved it.
When we got into a position where we could retire debt, things like September 11 hit us, and we had no option: we had to sell cattle. We couldn't say we'd wait six months, because we were under the gun from banks, etc.
The same thing happened with BSE. We were wounded going into BSE, so to survive this long is quite a feat. We were in a position in the fall of 2007 to reduce numbers to try to help our situation, and we got hit with $1.10. Those were things that we couldn't navigate around, because we were under pressure.
:
Our system has changed over time or evolved to do that. It really becomes a question of how efficient the processing and marketing are, as well as the production. If you are in a province where you have a processor that is not very aggressive and not a good marketer, it unfortunately doesn't matter how cheaply you can produce that chicken; you still have to transport it live to a processor. So you need someone fairly close to you, and if they don't do a good job, it doesn't matter at that point.
In fact, that happened to Saskatchewan, which went way down in the early nineties in those terms. It took us about two years, but we essentially got Saskatchewan back up to almost double their production in order to bring them back. They said they had got to the point where even one processor was not efficient enough and that they needed to get it up, so they had that size. We did that. The difficulty we had was that they promptly went out and brought in another processor, and all of a sudden the efficiency that we thought we had created in Saskatchewan dropped down.
You have one very aggressive plant now, Prairie Pride in Saskatoon, which is looking aggressively at exporting. That has helped a lot. It allows, on a self-selection basis by a province, to ask whether they want to get involved in that, what is the marketing necessary, and what quota they can attach to that.
We actually have meetings next month to look at whether or not there are different ways we can determine differential growth between provinces. For the last four years, the growth has been shared equally across the country. That becomes an issue when you get to a point where some processors are having difficulty in some regions, and some may not need as much as others. Frankly, the ones in Manitoba are very aggressive now as processors. They've taken a Saskatchewan producer away, having it move over to Manitoba.
So that's some of the stuff that happens. There's a dynamic in there, and we're trying to make sure our system matches where consumer demand is going and the structure of the industry goes.
John, I'll go to you first. I've looked at your case for a long while as well. Certainly an individual caught in the domino effect of a situation where you've basically lost your economic livelihood in terms of the livestock industry.... You had some other options to help bail yourself out, but you shouldn't have had to do that.
The key question is, where to go from here? I do like your suggestion on an ombudsman kind of thing. Regardless of the party, we all deal with these situations. In Prince Edward Island we had the same agency, but PVYn in 1991; it was settled in 1996. New Brunswick still has it before the courts. The theory is that you can go before the courts to gain justice, as you could do in your case, but there's no way an individual could afford to take on the Government of Canada.
I think the ombudsman is maybe a possibility for us to at least suggest, but what can we do to deal with your specific situation? I have the letter from the minister here. He is saying that “...the Government of Canada could not make an ex gratia payment because settlements had already been made in the United States and that Canada had provided compensation as afforded by the Health of Animals Act.”
In fairness to the minister, that doesn't leave us anywhere to go, so I wonder what you could suggest.
Second, while you're thinking about that answer, I want to come to the Cattlemen's Association. We have a dilemma here in the livestock and hog industry on what to do. Gord, I think your key point in the last answer was that we're not operating in a fair market. I've raised the question with others, including the Cattlemen's Association. Why don't we establish...? We always hear from the heads of a lot of organizations, saying we have to be competitive, get rid of a few regulations, let's be competitive, but competitive against what? I don't know why Canadians theorize that there's such a free market out there. It isn't free. It isn't free anywhere. So what's our bottom line?
You're right on the Alberta program. I'm not criticizing the Alberta government for doing what it did. I understand that. It's under pressure. Cargill is big in Alberta. It wants to keep that feeder lot operating and that plant. When you pay $100 in Alberta and $60 in Saskatchewan, what about producers in the rest of the country? We have a patchwork quilt of programming that is driving us out of business in Atlantic Canada, you out of business in Ontario, and what it comes down to is a lack of a federal vision for the country.
How can we get to that fair market you're talking about? Do we have to match the United States dollar for dollar, or what? Those are two questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to talk to Mr. Hardy for a couple of minutes. Unfortunately, because of time, we have to keep it brief.
Being an Alberta member of Parliament from an area that has 60% of the cow-calf producers in Alberta, I do take you at your word that you, unlike Mr. Easter, are not attacking the Alberta government for what it has done. You just want a similar program put in place across the country. I take you at your word that you recognize that the Conservative government in Alberta has always recognized the importance of its producers, as our government has always recognized the importance of our producers.
One of the things that is never talked about when this discussion comes up in the context of competitiveness is that the Alberta government attached age verification to that money. They pushed their industry so that it would be more competitive in areas that they identified around the world. That's something I'd like you to comment on. How important do you think it would be if there were a program of this nature, if Ontario recognized its producers the same way as Saskatchewan and Alberta have? Do you think age verification should be attached to that?
There is a second thing I'd like to ask you. I'm sure you know that it is always propositioned or positioned that Alberta is this big rich province that just throws money at problems. We're in a deficit position. The Province of Manitoba is not in a deficit position, yet we are stepping up for our producers more than Manitoba is. So it's not about money, it's about recognizing the importance of the industry.
I'd like you to also talk about the trade premium that we've heard about from other presenters. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, CAFTA, and everybody recognize that there is a trade premium that we will get if we can sell into some of these other countries, if we can sell into South Korea, if we can sell into some of these other markets, and they recognize the importance of that for Ontario as well.
If you could answer those questions, I have many more.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank our guests for being here today.
I must tell you that my city of London, Ontario, which I like to say is the 10th largest city in Canada, is not particularly agriculturally based, but certainly surrounding us is Middlesex County and other counties, and you would know that. I'd like to take exception, though, to a comment that my colleague said: I don't care what the weather is. If it's drizzly, wet, and nasty, I'd rather be inside than out, and for those others who have a different passion, God bless you.
But my interest in agriculture isn't just because I had breakfast and lunch today; it's more around the standpoint of trade. I've heard a lot of comments about trade today. I sit on the international trade committee and I'm particularly interested in some of the comments.
In fact, Mr. Dungate, you just made a very compelling comment about Brazil, which I'll come back to in a moment.
I've had the privilege to head a delegation to Peru. We talked about the beef industry there in terms of opening up markets and we're trying to secure the free trade deal with Peru. The reason we need to do that, as you know and my colleagues opposite know, is that the Americans have put a free trade deal in Peru. Our delay in implementing that puts Canada's beef industry and Canada's agriculture industry at a total disadvantage because the Americans are there. I say that not as a political comment but as a comment on behalf of the interests of all Canadians in agriculture.
First, if I might, Mr. Dungate, in your presentation you made a comment about bans in terms of the chicken industry. You weren't as concerned about Mexico, but you talked about the Philippines and Taiwan. I just came back from Taiwan, and one of the things that we did, I will tell you, is talk about the beef industry in Taiwan to the president of Taiwan. We did not talk, I will tell you, about chickens. I tell you that sincerely, but I would ask you to help me understand the circumstances in the Philippines and Taiwan. How large is that market? How long has the ban been there? Or what's the potential size of it? I'd like just briefly a bit of history on that, if you don't mind, sir.
:
Mr. Chair, I'll raise a concern about motions. It's not so much about this specific motion; it's about tabling a motion that deals with the committee agenda and committee business without working with the subcommittee, which is the committee we have to help set the agenda. All sorts of questions follow from this. For example, when, how long, how many meetings, who would the witnesses be, what's the impact on the work we're doing right now, how does this conflict with possibly any other reports we want to table, and are we talking about a report coming out of this? There are a lot of questions, and it takes time to discuss all that, which is, I think, one of the reasons we established a steering committee on agenda.
The idea is that the four key players come together, they have time to discuss this, and they put together a draft plan for the committee. It's going to come to committee anyway, but the point is that a lot of this has been discussed. We each have our meetings outside of this committee as well. Information gets shared at that level. We have time to digest it and see what the impact is on the whole committee so that when we do discuss it at committee, we actually have answers closer to our fingertips. I won't say that they're always at our fingertips, but they are closer to our fingertips.
I would ask whether Mr. Atamanenko would mind submitting this to the steering committee. Let the steering committee flesh it out and determine what's involved in this kind of study, where it might go, and what kinds of results we're looking for. Let the steering committee put together its report. The report would come to the main committee, and then the main committee can react.
We have a steering committee, and it's kind of half there and half not there. It depends on how we want to do business on any given day. I'd prefer to see it start there so that they can flesh it out. They can actually present this type of idea to the committee in context, not out of context. Right now, it's kind of out of context. What's the launch on this? Aren't we involved in other studies right now? Don't we have other witnesses coming? I don't have the full agenda in front of me or the full committee schedule in front of me.
That would be my recommendation.