:
Sure, I can do that. Thank you very much.
The Agriculture Producers Association of Saskatchewan is pleased to have this opportunity to address the standing committee on the important issue of the future of the Canadian Grain Commission. APAS is Saskatchewan's farm organization with a mandate to promote the interests of agriculture producers in Saskatchewan. As a democratic grassroots organization, our objective is to effectively influence government and other industry stakeholders through sound policy development aimed at improving short-, medium-, and long-term sustainability of agriculture in Saskatchewan and Canada.
Ours is an industry that's gone through many evolutionary changes over a relatively short period of a few decades. Many of the changes seen in Canadian agriculture have been, first, to develop a strong agriculture industry in this country, and second, to react to the impacts caused by agriculture policies of other countries. Over time, the institutions, processes, and infrastructure that have been developed to build this industry have come to play very different roles in a world driven more by economics than subsistence, more focused on mechanization, and have moved from a largely public paradigm to one that is much more privatized.
In many cases, the infrastructure and institutions that have been put in place for the purposes of streamlining and building the agriculture industry have not evolved at the same rate as the rest of the industry. That does not mean, however, that there does not continue to be value in the presence of those institutions for the benefit of the industry and the Canadian economy as a whole. The Canadian Grain Commission is one such institution. In the case of the CGC, there is still value to the industry for the institution to deliver on the mandate on which it was originally organized. That is, one, to establish grain grades and standards; two, to regulate the transportation, handling, and storage of grain in Canada; three, to provide producer protection services; and four, to undertake and sponsor research in grain and grain products.
While there is little doubt that there is still value to be provided to the industry through the operations of the Canadian Grain Commission, the COMPAS report has, rightly in our opinion, identified several areas under which the CGC may need to evolve more quickly to streamline processes and practices to ensure maximum value is being provided to the industry and, more importantly from our perspective, to producers. For example, we concur with the recommendations made in the report that the CGC processes must become more transparent to the industry stakeholders, and that all stakeholders be afforded a more intensive opportunity to guide CGC policy and programs. We encourage the CGC to continue to work toward evolving the grading industry to ensure that producers in Canada continue to have competitive tools that ensure producer profitability on a global basis but don't limit Canadian producers from maximizing their ability to be profitable at home as well.
With the increasing trend toward privatization in the grain transportation and handling system, it is of paramount importance that producers are able to trust the institutions put in place to protect their interests. For this reason, it is of great interest to APAS that the CGC be more proactive in enforcing the Canadian Grain Act to ensure that producers' interests are protected, so that they retain and are able to continually enhance the power they hold in the marketplace.
Of the recommendations made in the COMPAS report, however, APAS is concerned with the recommendation that inward weighing and inspection services become optional in the system. With current mandatory use of inward weighing, producer-owned facilities, producers who utilize producer cars, and companies without export facilities are all able to access an objective assessment of the weight and grade of their grains and oilseeds going into the export terminals. This requirement provides stability and integrity for the entire system. Even in the case of inter-company transactions, the objectivity provided by the third party inspection allows for more stability in accurate weighing and grading. This could and should translate into a producer benefit, as companies are less likely to enlarge margins to cover error when purchasing at the producer level.
As stated previously, there continues to be net benefits to the industry through the use of institutions and processes that exist in today's environment. In the case of inward weighing and inspection, producers stand to benefit from a symbiotic relationship between the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission. Terminal gains that may be shared with the CWB are a direct result of Canadian Grain Commission inward and outward inspection at the terminals. Without an inward and outward weighing and inspection quantification, there would be no way of determining gains or losses other than by information supplied by the company.
Without a CWB there would be no mechanism to provide this value back to producers, as there are none currently for any other grains that are sold strictly on the open market. Without this inspection being mandatory, there is no accurate measurement of the throughput to determine terminal gains. From the perspective of maintaining producers' interests, the Canadian Grain Commission has an obligation to maintain the use of inward weighing and inspection to ensure that the grain handling system operates with integrity and honesty for the good of the industry and for the economy.
It is interesting to note that the move towards eliminating inward weighing and inspection services provided by the Canadian Grain Commission is largely being championed by those companies that own export terminal capacity. In the western Canadian system at present, the removal of inward weighing services would provide an extremely negative perception of the system, with those operators being given the ability to treat the rest of the system unfairly.
To mitigate the issues that eliminating inward weighing and inspection services would purportedly address, APAS would recommend that the differential in standards between country and export should be examined for the inefficiencies and added expense that it causes. Blending down or mixing in foreign material may be some of the most expensive practices we have, which will not be addressed simply through the elimination of inward weighing and inspection. There are some perverse incentives for operators to do the wrong thing because of the difference in standards between our country and other countries we trade with.
Producers will ultimately pay a large amount of the cost within the system. Even though other system participants ask for the service, and even if they pay for it, those costs will flow through to producers through handling and cleaning charges. Especially for the inter-company transfers, it is a net benefit to those companies to have the CGC facilitate shipment at the bottom of a grade. Those costs should not continue to be part of the costs that are for the public good or that are borne by the producer.
That's what I have to say right now. Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank you, on behalf of the Canadian Seed Trade Association, for the opportunity to make our comments today on this issue. We would like to limit our comments to KVD, or kernel visual distinguishability, rather than the whole COMPAS report.
My comments will be largely contained within the submission we made, which is available in both French and English, but rather than speaking directly from that submission I'll comment more directly, based on my own personal involvement in the seed industry and some examples we would like to share on opportunities for evolving KVD into the future.
The CSTA represents 143 member companies across Canada that are engaged in all aspects of the seed industry, including research, plant breeding, and production and marketing on both a domestic and international basis. Membership ranges from small companies to multinationals that market garden seeds and herbs; from large western grain companies to small family-run and farm-based businesses across the country. Our members produce about 50 different crops, including grains and oilseeds, special crops, forages, turf grass, flowers, vegetables, and fruits.
Every year over 1.2 million acres of pedigreed seed crops are produced in Canada by over 4,000 experienced growers. The Canadian seed industry makes a very important contribution to the agricultural sector and the economies of Canada and its provinces. The industry generates more than $770 million in sales annually. In addition to 4,000 growers, Canadian seed companies employ an estimated 9,600 Canadians.
The seed industry also makes a strong contribution to Canada's export balance. About 25% of the seed produced in Canada is exported to over 70 countries. Exports of Canadian seed are valued at about $188 million.
Agricultural production starts with the seed. Innovation in the seed sector has driven tremendous improvements in productivity in the past, and continues to be a critical tool for managing risk and increasing benefits to farmers. For example, there are new crop varieties on the horizon that will be increasingly resistant to disease and pests, have increased drought and salinity tolerance, and make better use of nutrients.
I also represent a seed organization. I'm the general manager of SeCan Association, which is based here in Ottawa. We represent about 1,100 member companies across Canada, including everything from small to large--in some cases multinational--independent grower/processors and grain companies. We market both publicly developed and privately developed genetics and are quite proud of the contribution we've made in that regard. We directly return over $40 million back to research on the development of new plant varieties across Canada. We account for roughly 40% of the certified seed sold in Canada.
We have some definite views on kernel visual distinguishability and the impact it has on our ability as seed companies and seed marketers to be able to innovate and add value for our customers across Canada. I would like to share with you, largely on personal experience, what has happened when we removed the barriers on kernel visual distinguishability.
I was previously employed by a small seed company in Ontario that specialized in red wheat variety development. In the Ontario example, KVD restrictions were removed in 1989, and this allowed us to really innovate within the province. The industry speaks for itself on this point, in that it flourished and developed quite a broad array of new products and value-added opportunities for farmers, which have also led to increased investment downstream on the part of grain companies, food processors, and so on. All of this has decreased Ontario producers' dependency on export markets and has brought a wealth of diversity to the cropping options available to them. It has helped wheat acreage to actually increase and compete effectively with other production options, such as soybeans and corn.
So if we look to the future of western Canada, our belief is that what's happening right now is that we're on the verge of some exciting opportunities. Obviously we have a significant investment going on in western Canada in the feed industry, which would benefit from higher-yielding genetics that also have improved disease tolerance.
We also have the emergence of the energy opportunity, in terms of ethanol production in western Canada, which again is going to demand that some radically different types of wheat options be available to producers than in the past.
Based on this, we feel there's a great opportunity right now for us to embrace what is recommended in the COMPAS report, first by loosening up the KVD requirements on the minor classes. Further, we feel there's opportunity to make allowances for kernels to be included in other classes of wheat that in fact would resemble the CWRS and Canadian western amber durum classes.
The recommendations suggested by the Grain Commission to date include removing KVD from the minor classes. We certainly applaud this and think it's a step in the right direction. But we also believe we have a long way to go in terms of opening up KVD even further to bring the kinds of opportunities to western Canadian producers that exist in other countries and now in fact in Ontario.
We believe the cost of maintaining KVD in western Canada has been somewhat underestimated in the past. It's easy to underestimate the cost when you can't see exactly what you're missing. There have been some suggestions by a report that it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 million a year. That is arguably much higher when you consider the cumulative beneficial effects of plant breeding over time.
It's our feeling that Canada really does have a competitive advantage versus our North American and international counterparts in wheat production, and we would like to see those opportunities opened up and further expanded for the benefit of producers. As I mentioned, we feel that in particular this will result in increased processing capacity in western Canada, and a healthier feed and ethanol energy industry going forward.
Coming back to the Ontario example, since 1989 we've seen the number of classes and opportunities available to Ontario farmers increase dramatically, to the point where most of the varieties grown now are visually indistinguishable from each other. This has resulted in a significant increase in processing capacity and investment in Ontario. A lot of that wheat, which is being supplied to domestic mills, is now displacing wheat from western Canada, where they are under the constraints of kernel visual distinguishability.
In addition, we've been able to bring in genetics from other countries that are suitable to many parts of Canada's production regions, but that are not visually distinguishable. In fact some varieties developed with western Canada in mind are now not eligible to be grown there, but can be grown in Ontario. So we feel there's a great deal to be offered to western Canada by removing those constraints.
Further, if we look within the COMPAS report, we talk about the opportunity that would be created by eliminating or reducing the constraints of KVD. We went back to a specific example in western Canada where one of our researchers from a CSTA member company—in fact, our company—made a comment that winter wheat breeders have not had a new hard red winter wheat variety supported for registration for five years, because the material is failing KVD requirements in western Canada.
Normally Canada western red winter has a smaller or less plump kernel than Canadian western red spring type wheat. However, in ideal growing conditions, red winter wheat varieties tend to plump up and produce larger kernels, so that they appear similar to Canadian western red spring. Hence, there have been no new winter wheat varieties in western Canada in the past five years. In contrast, in the east we now have about 20 different red winter wheat varieties available to producers that are offering all sorts of value-added opportunities—in fact, in some cases being identity-preserved for shipment to the U.S.
These are the sorts of opportunities we feel will certainly benefit western Canada in the future, if we're able to first of all embrace the concept of opening up the minor classes and further reducing the constraints of KVD on all classes of wheat in western Canada.
Thank you very much.
:
Throw the BlackBerrys out, Mr. Chair. It would be a good thing.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations.
Starting with Jeff first, I don't think you'll find any disagreement around the committee on the need to develop new products for different characteristics. The key, though, with the Canadian Grain Commission is, when you can't grade a product by visual distinction, how the commission can ensure—in the case, maybe, of some high-milling wheat that's being sold to wherever—that the quality is there for its intended purpose, whether it's making bread in some foreign country or whatever.
That's the problem: how do we find a way to assure quality? Do we have to go to different technologies? We need the ability to assure importing countries that the product is what we say it is and that we do not get blended in with number one red spring wheat, a product that isn't of the same characteristics. That's where we have to find the balance.
There's a research centre in Charlottetown looking into farm products for health requirements, etc., so we are going to be in the future growing products for other than just straight food purposes. Ethanol is another example. How do you see, moving forward, the assuring of quality? You've had the experience of Ontario.
:
Thank you very much. That's really a critical question, moving forward.
If we look to the bigger picture internationally, it's my understanding, based on my experience in the industry, that Canada is the only place that depends on this type of KVD system. Obviously there are examples of systems that work around the world, and certainly Canada is not the only place in the world that grows and delivers good-quality wheat to its customers. So we believe there are options out there. Some that have been explored in the past include an affidavit type of system, which I believe is certainly an option and one that has been employed in Ontario.
If we look, though, to what Canada's competitive advantage is, we look to the seed certification system we have in Canada. We have developed in Canada a very effective system, where the CSGA—the seed growers across Canada—work hand in hand with the federal government through the CFIA to have what I think is a seed system second to none, which provides a guaranteed, known entity of seed when it reaches the farmer. I think that provides us with a good base for knowing what we're starting with, and combined with an affidavit system, we feel it can be quite effective and has been effective in the Ontario market.
We have some unique opportunities in Canada. We have a variety of registration systems that ensure we know what is going out there, what is available to be sold, and what is available to be produced by farmers. We have, again, a second-to-none seed certification system, so that we know the seed is being delivered in pure form to farmers and we know what we're starting with. Again, with an affidavit system we think we have a pretty effective option.
Also, I think it's been proven by both the Canadian Wheat Board and the private sector within Canada that we are able to do a good job of identity preservation, keeping things separate. The Canadian Wheat Board themselves run quite a number of IP programs, which I think have been quite effective, and certainly private industry across Canada has demonstrated in all sorts of crops that they are in fact able to keep things separate and know what they're delivering to their customers. So where there's a demand by the customer to know what they're getting, that can be accommodated by industry, and I think that's been demonstrated quite well. As well, we can certainly have a testing system to verify this through the CGC.
And thanks, gentlemen, for appearing before the committee today.
The COMPAS report states that the grain sector is at a crossroad. Of course they call it a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and that's biofuels. That seems to be the buzzword today, but the ideal grain for the biofuel industry is basically low protein and high carbohydrate, the opposite of what it is for human consumption, so there has to be a transition in there for producers and what have you.
Mr. McBride, I'd like to hear you comment on how that transition is going to be dealt with by producers and how it should be, whether through market forces or government intervention, and I'd like some comments on how long you think that transition might take.
The report also recommends a major restructuring of the government's Canadian Grain Commission to make it basically more compatible. It sounds like it's really outdated; I'd like to hear your comments on that, and what the impact has been from the fact that it's outdated--if that's your opinion on it--and what it may have cost producers.
I also have a question for Mr. Reid. I'd like to hear a little more from you on KVD. You mention in there that it's a step in the right direction, but you also indicated that you'd like to see it step forward to be more similar to Ontario. I'm from Ontario, so I'd like to hear you speak a little bit about that and tell us exactly what you were meaning there.
I'll turn it over to you.
:
Thank you for the questions.
With regard to the biofuel--and obviously it is the buzzword--because of what we produce, the volumes we produce, and the land we produce it on, I think that western Canada does in fact produce grain that would be or could be extremely suitable for this biofuel production.
Obviously where producers are situated in the middle of the bald prairie--the beautiful bald prairie, I might add--is a long way from port, so freight is a major concern for any producer in our particular jurisdiction. Anything we can do to enhance the internal consumption of low-quality, but good-quality product for ethanol or biodiesel is extremely important, because freight is a huge cost that is borne by the producer.
Biofuel is an extremely important industry that wants to get going, and we need it to get going. However, the restrictions out there, as far as the KVD and some of those things are concerned, to ensure the quality for export.... We will always export some grain, and we need to export that high-quality grain, but there needs to be protection to ensure our consumers--wherever we ship to-- that the grain they're buying is what they think they're buying. Somehow we have to get to a point where we can have these lower-quality wheats established and developed so they're there for the ethanol industry.
We think it's extremely important to have a regulatory body such as the Canadian Grain Commission in place to establish those standards, but also to have the flexibility to ensure that the integrity is there for high-quality grains. I cannot speak to how long that transition will be; I hope it's sooner rather than later. The producers need this type of industry yesterday. As I said, the freights are huge, and the costs we are bearing to export grain--all types of grain--need to be addressed.
I think there's an opportunity to do that. There's DNA testing; there are a number of things available that can make this biofuel industry go. We need to explore all those options.
With regard to the governance, it needs to take place. But I guess the biggest thing is that the accountability needs to be there. As long as that accountability can be assured and the protection is there, whether it's a CEO or a commissioner, that's what we need to see.
:
Thanks for your question.
With regard to the difference between Ontario and western Canada and the opportunities we see, essentially what's being proposed in eliminating KVD from the minor classes means that the minor classes of wheat can look like each other, but they all still have to be distinguishable from the major classes, being CWRS and amber durum. So essentially, kernel visual distinguishability really still applies to all wheat in some form or another. It's just that those minor classes don't have to look different from each other.
So in a sense, there has been very little done to make a plant breeder's life much easier in terms of really making more rapid progress, largely because what we hear from the plant breeders is that the default kernel shape for red wheat is something that looks like a CWRS. They're still really battling with the KVD issue. So that makes progress slow and makes it quite frustrating when you see that on the other side of the fence there are products that offer considerable value to farmers in terms of better disease tolerance, be it fusarium or whatever, or insect tolerance, or simply a higher yield for some of those new emerging markets.
We just feel that there's an opportunity for much quicker and much greater progress, and we feel that given the farm income situation right now, we can't afford to continue to overlook those opportunities that are being held back. So we feel that we need to eliminate those barriers, and when we look at the Ontario situation, at what was done back in 1989, it was that all red wheats were taken out of KVD. Essentially, the handcuffs were taken off. Whatever type of wheat could be brought forward, if it offered more economic value to the farmer and to the system as a whole, it could be introduced and could be grown.
In contrast, we still have KVD on white wheat in Ontario, and that has caused us some issues more recently as the industry has tried to diversify into some hard white wheats, for example. In one case, that product is being grown in Michigan now and imported back into Ontario because KVD prevents the product from being registered here.
So we just think we need to allow, wherever possible, the opportunity to innovate and add value in Canada.
:
First, I want to congratulate both of you for your presentations this morning. I feel that you've been very constructive in not only your criticism but also your observations in terms of moving forward. I value your judgment in terms of taking into consideration the primary producer and the flow-through costs that are associated oftentimes, passed on and then sort of kicked back and picked up by the producer. I think we have to be very cognizant of that.
To both of you, really, I'd like to go back the question from Mr. Miller in terms of the whole industry of the bio-industry, as we see it, and the research that will have to take place, not only for new breeds, as Mr. Reid alluded to, but new varieties as well. We find ourselves in somewhat of a conundrum in that we're developing varieties in Canada that the European Community will not accept because of the GMO context, whether it's for reasons of trade, a non-tariff barrier, or whatever it might be.
How do we function in an environment where we need to create new varieties in our own economy, for the good of the Canadian agricultural economy, and yet we're limited somewhat by what we might be able to do and what we already have? We know that GMO wheat, in terms of the resistance to Roundup, is not going to fly at this moment.
So I'm just wondering, how do we deal with that in this environment? How do we move forward and...seem somewhat restricted by doing so?
That's directed at both of you.
:
Okay, I'll take a kick at the cat here.
As I said earlier, in my own particular farming operation I strive to grow a high-quality export wheat, because that's what my land can grow. This isn't saying that I couldn't change my operation to grow something else if I could see that there was more money in it. And producers have, over a long period of time, tried to do that.
We always will export high-quality wheat. We need to export high-quality wheat. But there are all kinds of opportunities. As I said earlier, freight is a big issue for people where I am in Saskatchewan. We are not very close to any sort of port.
So whatever we can do to consume that internally is extremely important. There has been research done that would assist me in doing that. However, if there is a possibility that my chance to export a high-quality wheat is jeopardized, I have a problem with that too.
Jeff talked earlier about affidavits. Somehow we have to have some sort of disincentive there so that producers don't misrepresent what they have grown and jeopardize that high-quality wheat. Sometimes you have to have penalties to ensure that what people say they deliver is in fact what they do deliver. There are ways of making this happen that would be beneficial for industry in Canada, the biofuel industry, and would ensure as well that what we export is what we say we export: high quality.
So there are ways of doing it.
:
I'd just like to echo some of those comments.
Like everyone, I think, in the seed industry, the Canadian Seed Trade Association is very supportive of a science-based regulatory system. To build on that, though--and to answer your question--we can't predict what is going to be acceptable from time to time in different regions around the world. I think we need to focus on having a trusted, science-based model in place, and trusted not just internationally; we really have to work on building the trust of that system here at home.
We need traceability. We need the systems in place to deal with these things as they come along. In terms of KVD, if we look to the future, we're not going to be able to distinguish genetically modified from non-genetically modified by how the kernels look, clearly. We see a need to move to that next generation, where we can really do an effective job of segregating and streaming these things. I think we really need to focus on the process and the system.
If we look at, for example, the soybeans we're growing in Ontario, the vast majority of what's being grown out there is genetically modified. But we're also leading the world in the export of food-grade non-GMO products into high-value markets like Japan, for example.
So I think things can coexist. We just need to focus on getting the system in place.
:
I think it's important that the benefit come back to the primary producers who actually do the production. I was just surprised to learn that, and I thought I'd ask about it when you were here.
Earlier, Mr. McBride, you mentioned that the value of the Canadian Grain Commission in terms of its quality control, exports, etc., is important to the Canadian economy; therefore, those costs should be picked up by Canada as a whole. In fact, I would agree with that. Maybe the researcher could tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe the costs for the Canadian Grain Commission—if they were borne 100% by the Government of Canada—would be GATT green. I do believe that's the way we should be going. We know now that the WTO has fallen, so we do have to find ways of assisting the industry under the current WTO rules. That's an area where the Government of Canada could certainly assist the farm industry.
Could you comment on that?
You mentioned as well that in the future the Canadian Grain Commission needs to be more proactive in enforcing the Canada Grain Act. Can you indicate to us any areas of shortcoming, and whether or not the COMPAS report deals with those shortcomings in terms of operating in the producers' interests?
We had one witness here who indicated to us that this report really takes power away from producers and gives it to the grain trade. I'm not saying whether that's true or not, but that was a comment made, that these recommendations really take power out of producers' hands and give it to the grain trade.
Do you have any comments on those two points?
My first question is for Mr. Reid.
You've told us that it would be impossible in the future to keep the kernel visual xx since it is impossible to identify visually each of the kernels arriving at the elevator. Therefore, this system should be replaced by a seed certification system.
Basically, this means that there will be a considerable increase in the varieties of seeds and that the production we be much more fragmented. In other words, we are moving towards multiple types of productions which will not necessary be at the same level. This fragmentation of the production will come with a fragmentation of the control system and of the transportation system. Indeed, the more production is diversified, the higher the number of different systems you have to manage to ensure that there is no blending. In the end, that's the core of the problem.
At what point could the seed certification system lead to an overfragmentation of the types of seeds? Furthermore, I would like to know if you have looked at how much, in percentage, the seeds developed for the production of ethanol would lead to a reduction or a change of the present production.
:
Good morning, gentlemen.
I would like to tell you my thhinking. Being from Quebec, everything relating to Western Canada and grain is a bit too remote for us.
As far as seeds are concerned, I believe that research is vital. I have always been in the farming sector and, through my readings, I have concluded that Agriculture Canada abandoned all research about 10 years ago. Now, it's only paying lip service to it.
We have excellent researchers in Canada but their budgets have been decimated and we are now living with the consequences. I believe that we have a 10-year lag in strategic planning, in research and marketing of farm products, especially for the Western grain industry. This doesn't make things any easier and we are now faced with the consequences and we're having to catch up.
I wonder if you agree with my analysis. We believe that we need to develop a vision to be implemented over the next 10 or 15 years in order to raise the profitability of our producers. We hear a lot of talk about techniques that might lead to savings of up to $2 to $10 per ton. Had we worked in concert 10 years ago, with strategic thinking, we would not be around this table today trying to save 10 $ per ton. We would have a flourishing industry.
What do you think should be done to ensure that the Canadian grain industry become a booming industry over the next 15 years?
:
At port, not inward. We can only do port at Thunder Bay, unfortunately.
Gentlemen, are there any closing remarks?
It's been a great discussion. Thank you so much for your presentations here today. You can be assured all of this will go into the report that we will be tabling in due course.
The meeting will move on now to a bit of housekeeping that we have to do. Thank you so much. You're free to go, if you care to.
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is putting on a luncheon in the East Block courtyard. I'm sure the invitation would extend to the folks who prepare the feed that goes into a lot of those cattle. I understand it starts at 11:30, and we have an invitation for all of the members of the committee to attend as well. That's out of the road.
Next on the agenda, there is no meeting tomorrow, as was originally scheduled. We were shuffling around to make up the two extra CGC meetings. That meeting is postponed at this point. There is a report coming down on the nematode on Friday that would be more helpful to have prior to the meeting rather than after the meeting. So that's what's happening.
There has also been some discussion with the dairy producers on the MPC situation. They're asking us to hold off a little bit, to give them some time to finish the negotiations. Mr. Bellavance is up to speed on that issue, as is Mr. Gourde. They've also made presentations to me. That takes care of that issue.
Is everybody okay with that? No meeting tomorrow. Do we need a motion to that effect? Does everybody agree that the meeting is postponed tomorrow? On a show of hands, it's concurred. Thank you.
Next on the agenda, we had a motion from Mr. Easter to call Ms. Charlton before the committee. We have a response from her. It hasn't been circulated. She is wondering why she's being called, of course. But having said that, her schedule is such that her earliest opportunity to meet with us is November 13. Apparently her husband is away on business, and kids and so on, throughout October, which it makes it problematic. I'm just using that date; she is available after that point.
Jean-François will have her e-mail to us translated and sent around. But that's the first response we've had back from her. It's an ongoing discussion.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with what you're trying to do, and that's good. But I think to be fair, Alex, we're trying to reinvent the wheel here. I know that we all, in our ridings--at least, I presume we are--are in contact with our various producer groups, and you can never have enough discussion and coordination with them.
Where I have the problem here is that the leaders of these groups only have so much time in their busy schedules. To approach what you're trying to do, I would suggest, is for us to write to them all and ask them to submit something in writing and maybe have it for the committee to review. At a later date, if you feel this is necessary.... But further to us all, as individual MPs, consulting with the different stakeholders and commodity groups, the minister does that, the department does that from time to time, so unless we have something written in advance, I'm not sure you're going to achieve what you're trying to.
As I said, I appreciate where you're trying to end up. It's simply that I don't believe this is maybe the right way to go at it, that's all.