Evidence of meeting #61 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ontario.
1:55 p.m.
Member, Board of Directors, Canadian Sheep Federation
I'd like to comment on that.
Yes, the money was delivered, but it was also taken back, out of the sheep industry. And you don't hear that very often.
2 p.m.
President, Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition
I have a few comments on Agricorp.
I think the issue with Agricorp is the program and its complexity rather than the organization. I think the organization has probably served us well. But there are so many ad hoc payments and complex cases, I think that's the bigger challenge. Producers are phoning you, and you're getting the ones who are having the problems. They certainly have been getting dollars out and whatnot.
As far as a national program goes, one size doesn't fit all. If there are federal dollars available--and Geri really touched on it--to do a more individualized program for each province, then you really have a national program. But one size fits all, for every commodity, every sector, I don't know if that's quite there yet.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, Mr. Steckle.
Very, very quickly, Mr. Smith. The time has expired.
2 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association
On your question about whether the money has flowed, how do we know that for sure? With the P1 and P2, the billion or $900 million that was allocated there, I can tell you that precious damn little came to horticulture. The reason is that most horticultural crops are not storable.
The P1 and P2 was to adjust over time. It may have been a good, quick way to get that money out, I don't know, but I know that it did not address the need in the fruit and vegetable sector. The mechanism simply wasn't there.
2 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for your testimonies. Ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to hear, once again, comments that will be very helpful in designing a Canadian farm policy. Also, I have greatly appreciated the remarks made by Mr. Kamenz and Mr. Tuinema. They said that if the federal government imposes its views and its goals on provinces, on farmers, on regions and on the different commodities through a national policy, it will create disparities. This is what is happening now with the first Agricultural Policy Framework which has been forcibly put in place.
If we are here today and if the federal government, and even a Senate committee, has been consulting people all across the country, it is because things are not working as we would like. Let us be clear, we should design a flexible agricultural policy framework for provinces, areas and various commodities.
Mr. Kamenz and Mr. Tuinema, in your testimonies, you mentioned the companion programs issue. I would like some more information on the implementation of these programs in Ontario. Are they complementing federal programs such as CAIS or duplicating them?
2 p.m.
President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Thank you.
When we look at business risk management planning tools, especially on the income side, crop insurance does work in partnership with the federal government. But unfortunately, there are no companion programs available to Ontario producers. Ontario looks to the federal government for leadership, which is a terrible thing to have to live through and a terrible environment to farm in.
That's why we pointed to the $400 million that is currently on the table. We're saying that the sooner the will can be shown to distribute that money, the more likely we are to trigger our 40% matching funding from the province to turn that $400 million.... Well, if you look at historical funding allocations, Ontario's share is presumably going to be somewhere around $80 million. We can turn that $80 million into about $130 million, and that becomes a very meaningful injection of capital when farmers most need it.
To answer your question directly, unfortunately there are no companion programs in Ontario that are run in isolation of the federal government.
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Tuinema, you would like these programs to be funded by the federal government. You would have to coordinate this with the provinces and take into account the particular needs of each commodity. As I said earlier, there should be flexible programs addressing the needs of various provinces, areas and commodities. It would be a step forward for grain producers.
2:05 p.m.
President, Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition
Yes, that's correct. Currently we have CAIS and production insurance, which address income stability and crop perils. But they don't address some of the challenges that grains and oilseeds have regarding pricing due to the effect of, say, U.S. farm programs.
The one thing you'd asked about earlier was the connection between the proposed programming in Ontario, the risk management program, and the federal program, CAIS. They're meant to be complementary. They're meant to be interconnected. So a producer ends up getting the better of the two; he doesn't get paid twice for the same income issue he has. That part is meant to be shared between the two.
It's also meant to be funded--over and above what CAIS wouldn't cover in that program--both federally and provincially, at 60% and 40%.
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Stutzki, we met yesterday in the province of Quebec, a lady from the Centre d’expertise en production ovine du Québec which is serving sheep producers. I did not have the time to ask her any questions. In answer to Mr. Steckle you said that you had received money from the federal, but that you had to give back some of it. This lady referred to a research program in the field of sheep production from which the government has withdrawn its funding. She also mentioned a national breeding program for which the government has not yet confirmed its intention to maintain its funding.
Did you say that you received some money but had to give it back?
2:05 p.m.
Member, Board of Directors, Canadian Sheep Federation
The money we received was ad hoc money throughout the time of the BSE crisis. It was extended to us during that time period with the understanding that they had the right to take the money back if there was a need for that. And that is exactly what happened to us. This was not a research money dollar. This was money sent to us ad hoc because of the crisis with the BSE situation at that time.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you very much for your presence.
I would just like some clarification.
Mr. Mountjoy, in regard to corn, my understanding is that when this whole dumping process started, as you were saying, corn was being let go in Canada for $1.91 Canadian and later for $1.40. But at the same time, the Canadian price was $2.71. In other words, it was being sold for less than the cost of production. Am I right?
2:05 p.m.
President, Ontario Corn Producers' Association
No. The $1.91 was the amount of duty being applied to the U.S. corn as it came across the border. At that time, Ontario corn was selling for $2.71. You need to add the two figures together to come up with an end-user cost of corn.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
2:05 p.m.
President, Ontario Corn Producers' Association
There was a six-month period when that was in place, when the Canadian Border Services Agency came up with the final determination of what they would put a price on. That was the $1.47 duty--that's American. That would have been applied for the next year if the Canadian International Trade Tribunal had found we were injured, so they had a duty in place ready to go if the trade tribunal found we had been injured by these dumped crops. The trade tribunal, however, did not find we were injured, so there's no duty being applied on U.S. corn coming across the border now.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I remember that. Okay.
One of the reasons I wanted to get some clarification is that we have...and maybe also Mr. Smith, we could talk a little about the horticulture industry, apples and vegetables. We talked earlier on today about dumping apples in Canada, particularly Washington state apples in British Columbia. The B.C. fruit growers initially came up with an idea for a rapid response mechanism. In other words, for corn or apples or whatever is dumped, we slap on a tariff so at least our producers won't suffer right away. Another idea they're promoting is a minimum price, so in other words, any corn that comes across would have to have that same minimum price so that nobody here would suffer.
I would like to hear what your comments are on that, and also perhaps Mr. Smith's.
The other thing is that before NAFTA there used to be in-season tariffs for vegetables produced in British Columbia. That no longer exists. I imagine it was the same here, so maybe you can make a comment in the context of NAFTA. Is it working for our producers at that level?
Maybe I'll start there. Anybody else--Mr. Kamenz?--please feel free to join in if we still have time.
2:05 p.m.
President, Ontario Corn Producers' Association
There's a very set timeframe for any and all anti-dumping countervail suits in Canada. When you initially put your brief forward, it has to be a fully completed brief that goes forward to the Canadian Border Services Agency. We did that in August 2005. They then had 90 days to come up with a preliminary judgment, so that took us to December. Then there's a six-month period after that to come up with the final judgment. That negates your quick duty applied when a fresh product especially, but corn as well, is coming across the border.
The other thing is that we feel the whole anti-dumping countervail situation in Canada is in severe jeopardy if we can have a 70% duty being collected by the preliminary judgment, yet we're not injured. So we feel that has put the whole industry in trouble for ever having the ability to bring forth a countervail anti-dumping suit again.
2:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association
With regard to NAFTA and your comments about apples, I'm not going to comment on that. You've heard that this morning, and the apple people are the experts here, not me.
With regard to NAFTA and has it been good for the industry, yes or no, it's a bit of a mixed bag. We have the greenhouse vegetable industry, which is highly dependent upon trade into the United States. Their biggest problem over the last few years has been an increase in the Canadian dollar valuation. The bio-security on any fresh product going into the United States can be held up, and because it is fresh and is not a storable commodity, after a day at the border the crop is ruined. So this is huge, and the Americans play the way the Americans play.
For others, NAFTA has not worked out well. Our biggest concern, however, goes beyond NAFTA, and as we're into more and more global trading and the logistics of moving fresh fruit around the world have been overcome, you can have fresh product from anywhere around the world on our shelves within a 36- to 48-hour period. In China and India the labour wage is less than $1 a day, and we're paying $14, $15 and more per hour. In Peru--we've a lot of competition from Peruvian asparagus--it's $5 a day. Those are some of the issues, and I don't know how you get around that, trying to block anybody or anything at the border, quite frankly, when we live with this global trading, and the removal of the tariffs that happened in 1988-89 and beyond. So it is difficult.
Our biggest hurdle, quite frankly, is that we live in a high-cost-of-production society and are trying to compete with those who don't have the same regulations, don't have the same input costs, whose products are coming in here. To me, it's more of a food security issue and being able to feed ourselves. If we don't take care of that, we have a problem.