Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry

Issue 12 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 5, 1997

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to which was referred Bill C-60, to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other Acts as a consequence, met this day at 12:09 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Leonard J. Gustafson (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on Bill C-60 to order. There will be an in camera session on the observations that will be sent to the minister on the bill, relating mostly to the agricultural recommendations made yesterday on the two major issues. The observations will be distributed, and perhaps we should take a moment to look at them.

Senator Hays: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the full committee go in camera to consider the report of the committee.

The Chairman: It agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The committee continued in camera.

Upon resuming.

The Chairman: We will resume our public meeting on Bill C-60, an Act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other acts as a consequence.

Could I have a motion that the committee deal with Bill C-60 clause-by-clause?

Senator Spivak: I so move, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Are we all in agreement?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall the title stand?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the preamble stand?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Rossiter: Is it necessary to do this if there are no amendments?

Senator Hays: I move that we deal with the rest of the clauses in the bill through a single vote and that we report the bill unamended with the observations which have been distributed to the committee. We could read them into the record, or we could take them as being read. I would prefer the latter, and I make my motion to that effect.

Senator Rossiter: I second the motion.

The Chairman: Is everyone in favour of the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: We now need a motion that the Chair have the authority to report the bill to the Senate.

Senator Taylor: I move that we report the bill today with the attachments, the observations and the recommendations.

Senator Kenny: I second the motion.

The Chairman: Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Spivak: Is there any other business?

The Chairman: Not in relation to the bill, but perhaps we should have a short discussion about the visit to Washington. It was an excellent trip for committee members. We were received quite well. We met with 15 congressmen, senators, and people from the agricultural bureau, and they were quite open to us. It was positive.

Should we have two senators give a brief report in the chamber to that regard?

Senator Hays: I think that is a good suggestion, Mr. Chairman, one from each side, or more.

The Chairman: One from each side, yes. Do we need a motion that Senator Spivak and perhaps Senator Taylor --

Senator Spivak: I think the Chair should do that.

Senator Hays: I will make a few comments as well. That would be the four of us. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you could put it on the Order Paper as a Notice of Inquiry.

Senator Spivak: Why not a report? I suggest that it might be in the nature a report, and that way it is tabled. Certain issues might be of interest to other senators. If it is a Notice of Inquiry, it is at the end of the agenda and no one listens to it. We must get matters from this committee a little higher on the political agenda. I do not see them as being very high on the agenda of the Senate, as a matter of interest. We need to be more aggressive.

The Chairman: I agree.

When I was in Victoria on the weekend speaking to the Federation of Agriculture, I spoke with the Wheat Board officials who were there. They are moving wheat down through the Mississippi as fast as they can. They indicated to me that they will continue to do so. Companies such as ConAgra and Continental want to buy this wheat, and the shipping people want to ship it, so why not do it?

That, of course, is not what we heard in Washington. When we confronted them with that situation, we said, "Your companies are buying that grain, so what is your objection?" It was a political thing right along the border. I bring that forth as information. Their intention is to keep doing it. However, the congressmen did say that what their companies do is one thing and what their government does is another.

Senator Rossiter: Perhaps it would be better for the chairman, the deputy chairman and the other two senators who were in Washington each to report, if they wish to do so. It would be in the Debates of the Senate. That would be far better than having the report tabled. They are sometimes tabled without any comment.

Senator Spivak: Could you not speak to it as well? My point was only with respect to the agenda.

Senator Hays: As I understand, we are resolved to ensure that we have an opportunity to speak to it in the chamber. Whether we do it further to a report or further to a Notice of Inquiry does not matter.

Senator Rossiter: Notices of Inquiries sometimes drag on and on.

Senator Hays: Yes, as do reports.

Senator Rossiter: Sometimes that is the fault of senators who have taken the adjournment.

The Chairman: Does the Subcommittee on Forestry have anything to report to the whole committee?

Senator Taylor: Senator Anderson is now the subcommittee Chair. I believe she is working on a set of hearings.

Senator Anderson: The first hearing has been scheduled for March 13 at 3:30 when the Senate rises and the following Monday evening.

The Chairman: Will you be informing all the officers who generally sit on the committee of this hearing? Are they invited to sit in?

Senator Spivak: All senators are. The whole Senate can come. Senators can attend any committee meeting they wish.

Senator Hays: Before we adjourn, I am reminded, because I am sitting next to the researchers, that the report will take some time to prepare. The spirit of our discussion here today is that we make our comments in a more timely way. I think that would suit me, since it is fresh in my mind. The best approach would be to go by way of Notice of Inquiry to draw attention to the results of our trip. I think you, Mr. Chairman, would be the appropriate person to give the Notice of Inquiry. We will then all join in and make our comments.

The Chairman: It will automatically raise debate on the various issues with which we are confronted.

I am told that it will take approximately two weeks to prepare the notes.

Senator Spivak: With respect to input prices, I noticed that the Competition Bureau has someone looking at this as well as the ongoing committee. We have heard very little about it. I would ask that we obtain some information. I can give you the exact reference. We talked about doing something about this or calling for an inquiry. It would be good to have all the information that is available on this matter.

The Chairman: It is increasingly becoming an matter of discussion at the provincial level as well.

Senator Spivak: The Director of Investigation and Research, who is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Competition Act, is already conducting a preliminary examination of this matter, that is to say, price fixing and other anti-competitive behaviour on fertilizer. It takes six people to call for an inquiry. However, if they are doing a preliminary investigation, perhaps we could know what is happening.

The Chairman: Referring back to the Federation of Agriculture meeting in Victoria, one speaker was from the University of Saskatchewan and one was an economist. They were continually referring to this suggestion. There was a great deal of optimism in the agricultural community in regards to the increase of the price of grain especially, and it then fell back again. They are concerned that we will run into serious problems in two or three years. The machinery companies have sold machinery like they have never sold it before. A salesman told me they are now taking contracts to sell tractors that they will not receive until a year from now because they cannot build them. Farmers are capitalizing on the low interest rates, and they are creating debt load. These professors were concerned about this area and the over-optimism.

When we were in Washington, we heard the exact same thing expressed by their farmers. They did not know where all the optimism was coming from.

Input costs are very important. One report I read indicated that the net profits in agriculture were 11 per cent, and they expect them to drop to 7 per cent.

Senator Hays: One thing which motivates the acquisition of capital spent on new equipment is the long period of time we have been using the old equipment. Eventually, it is cheaper to buy a new one than it is to fix the old one, and probably in many cases we have reached that stage.

Senator Taylor: I think of the capital costs of machinery or capital costs invested over the last ten years. Senator Hays is quite right. This is a late-time boom in machinery. There were machine agencies closing down and going bankrupt, and now they are selling a great deal of equipment. This boom is replacing the stuff which is worn out.

The Chairman: It is probably an area on which we should consider calling witnesses for further discussion.

The committee adjourned.