Agriculture Committee on Oct. 18th, 2006

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

I'm sorry, your time is done. Five minutes is gone.

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much.

As a courtesy to Mr. Atamanenko, who is in the House right now on an important matter, I would like to ask this question for the record on his behalf.

Would the U.S. proposal on domestic support in the WTO result in a real reduction in actual U.S. spending?

[Gary C. Groves]

The answer to that is a definite yes.

Our proposal I think works out to about a 53% reduction in our allowable level of domestic subsidy. There is just no way we can cover that by just shifting around boxes and the area we have available and so forth. If you really do the math, it just doesn't come out. We're talking about the amber box going down from around $19 billion to $7 billion, and for domestic support, that's the trade-distorting one. Then there's the de minimis...there are all these different boxes, you know. All those allowances would go down in half, so there's very much a definite reduction. Anybody who is saying otherwise is just trying to create a smokescreen so they can look at us rather than at themselves.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much.

We also have a question in common that I was planning on asking.

Recently I quoted into the record of this committee the National Farmers Union as stating that some U.S. trade reps have said that with the Conservative government's dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board, they had managed to do more in a few months than the U.S. had been trying to do for several years.

So the question that we also share is, does the U.S. government support this government's intention to remove single-desk selling at the Canadian Wheat Board?

[Gary C. Groves]

Our position on monopoly powers of state trade organizations is well known. We oppose that. We certainly are pursuing that in the WTO. We pursued it in various WTO cases, obviously, as you know.

Regarding the Conservative government, we're not part of that debate. That's an internal domestic Canadian matter, so I would just leave it. Our position is well known. But what you do here, whether you do that now voluntarily, that's a Canadian debate.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

So it wasn't a directive from the U.S.--

[Gary C. Groves]

No, no.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I have two issues.

First, I just want to follow up, if I can, Mr. Groves, on Mr. Bezan's question.

The U.S. Farm Bill, when it started out, basically covered wheat, corn, sugar beets, and a few other things. It seems to be getting broader and broader all the time and covering more products. I guess I wonder, as an agricultural producer, how far you're going and if there is any direction you could give us as to any other products that we haven't heard about that they're planning on including in it. I'm sure you'd share that with us if you knew.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gary C. Groves]

Right.

It has basically stuck to what we call the five program crops. I suppose I should name them now that I've mentioned them. It's wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, and rice. Those get over 90% of the support.

We brought in I think peas and lentils in the last one. That was something the producers in some of the states that border Canada certainly were supportive of. They would say that Canada has always had support for their peas and lentils, and now that they have their industry developed, they don't want us to do this. I mean, you always get those types of debates going back and forth.

In terms of this Farm Bill, as I said, the secretary is very concerned about equitable treatment. Equitable treatment that's really.... You're talking about what they call specialty crops, which is a bit of a misnomer, because specialty crops, value-wise, actually account for half of the U.S. agricultural crop production.

It's not that these people are looking to have a program subsidy, such as what they have for corn or whatever. They're looking for investments in their future, in terms of research; in terms of dealing with phytosanitary issues, whether it's within the U.S. or overseas; in terms of helping with market development, and so forth. If you do the green box types of programs, which are not considered to be trade distorting, that's the type of support I think they are looking for out of this Farm Bill.

So you may see some direction like that. But, no, you're not suddenly going to see all kinds of crops coming in.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

There is another issue. There are people who seem to think that water might become one of the next big agriculture issues, mainly because of the amount of irrigation that goes on in the midwest. Frankly, I've travelled through there, and I can't imagine how a society, or a government, can justify how much water gets used in basically desert conditions. But that's an opinion.

Another opinion I have is that water should never be treated like a commodity such as wheat or oil or lumber or whatever. That's something I believe very strongly in, and I will push my government on that issue. It's something I'm a big pusher for.

The Great Lakes basin covers just about 50%--within a million of 50% of the population--of Canadians. In your opinion, do you see that the diversion of water is moving to the front burner, so to speak, in the near future? Is there much discussion on that? What direction do you think the U.S. is headed on this?

[Gary C. Groves]

I'm certainly not an expert on water in the Great Lakes and so forth. But just to give you some water cooler talk, from what I can gather, our states have the same concerns as you about the Great Lakes: maintaining that water as a resource, not abusing that resource, and so forth. It's something we share.

It's not like they're planning on draining the Great Lakes or something like that. It's very much a shared approach. I don't perceive there are policies coming down the road that should create alarm on this.

Again, this is just what I can gather.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. I would just comment on that quickly, Mr. Chairman.

That's one thing about that saying that talk is cheap.... One thing that Canadians have a fear of, or I certainly do, is the fact--and I'm sure Americans recognize this--that very little water actually runs from the U.S. into the Great Lakes system. It all comes from Canada's side, or the biggest part of it does. So there is a difference, and the same care-taking, or worry, about that water supply may be slightly different.

I think the situation with Devils Lake in North Dakota shows an attitude that Americans are going to do what they want, so to speak--if and when they want. It's a fear that's out there. Hopefully, down the road, it doesn't create big-time problems. I think we have to protect it.

[Gary C. Groves]

You're out of my area of responsibility.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I understand.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Thank you very much. I think the sentiment of Mr. Miller is shared by all of us around this table. The diversion of Devils Lake into Manitoba is certainly something we haven't forgotten. In fact, we're not even getting used to it yet.

I have something that sort of goes back to the water issue, and this is my last question. It may not be into your areas of expertise, but certainly if we look at invasive species and we talk about invasive species going south into the U.S., we're concerned about invasive species coming north. I particularly think of the Asian carp, which is in the Mississippi system. That's only one, and there are others--a number we could mention.

I'm wondering what the U.S. is doing in terms of allowing live species into your country, for whatever purposes, whether it's to clean up ponds so you can raise other kinds of fish...the kinds of species that could ultimately end up being hazardous to our ecosystem. That's a serious problem and it is one we're wrestling with ourselves. But certainly when neighbours allow things to happen and those creatures start to trespass into our territory with negative impacts, we have reason to be concerned. Is that something that touches you? Are you involved?

[Gary C. Groves]

Not directly, but invasive species is an area that we're very concerned about. Obviously, we have lots of people in USDA working on this, working with their counterparts in CFIA on different ones that touch both sides. I think our general approach is that we understand and would agree with you that allowing things that can.... Since we do share this border, we have to consult with the other and look at this.

I think we're doing that more and more. I know we did that in the case of allowing in Paris and China, coordinating more of our actions to see what the other is doing and that what the other is doing is not going to affect the industry. I think it's a legitimate point and one that we need to always be aware of.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Thank you very much, members of the committee, and certainly to you people, Mr. Groves, Ms. Anderson.

Ms. Anderson, we didn't give you any time for comment on this...we actually did, but we didn't find you commenting. Have you anything to add to this meeting before you leave?

[Madam Lisa Anderson]

No. I think Mr. Groves covered it all quite adequately.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Next time you can come alone.

Thank you again. I hope we have covered areas that you see as areas of mutual concern, because obviously this is not a one-way street; it goes both ways. And we do appreciate your forthright answers and responses today.

[Gary C. Groves]

I very much appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. We are always willing to address your issues of concern and so forth. I find it very useful for me to hear from you. I hope it's useful to you, likewise.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Thank you very much.

This meeting stands adjourned.