Agriculture Committee on May 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Go ahead, Mr. Friesen.

[Bob Friesen]

First of all, let me say that we have discussed the Canadian farm bill at a federal-provincial agricultural ministers meeting, and they've been very receptive to our concepts.

I don't know that we should compare this so much to the point of asking how we can implement a U.S.-like farm bill; instead, we should be saying what it is about a Canadian farm bill. Our primary focus in developing a Canadian farm bill was making sure that we did what we thought was going to happen in the first agricultural policy framework, which is that we would prevent developing policy in silos.

In the current document we have, if you look at public goods and services, at the strategic growth pillar, and at the science and innovation pillar, how can we make sure we build a strong crosswalk between science and innovation and what we're doing with regard to carbon credit trading or renewable energy? We just need to make sure we build very strong crosswalks between what's going on in the public goods and services pillar, what's going on in business risk management, and what's going on in the strategic growth pillar.

For example, in the public goods and services pillar, if you're looking at ecological goods and services and what farmers could do through incentive-based programs, and if that could somehow be tied to the business risk management pillar in that it would decrease the load, then you have that strong crosswalk between those two pillars. That's really what we're trying to advocate--making sure we develop one pillar without forgetting how it correlates with the other, and making sure we build strong crosswalks between them.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But in terms of accomplishing what you want to accomplish under the public goods and services pillar, some of that is going to have to happen under environment; some of it is going to have to happen under other areas. I think something like 17 departments touch on agriculture policy. What baffles me is how you handle that in a budgetary process such that primary producers especially get the funding and the policy thrust they require. It's easier under the U.S. farm bill because they have a committee that looks at it all and directs it out of there.

[Bob Friesen]

If I use the first APF as an example, you will recall that the federal government allocated a certain amount to, say, the environmental pillar, and then the provinces contributed their share. That then allowed us to develop a national approach to, say, an environmental farm plan. In this case, in ecological goods and services, we could do the same thing. If there was agreement at the federal-provincial level and the agriculture ministers agreed to an ALUS-like program, for example, that could then be implemented nationally and would be jointly funded by both the provincial and the federal government.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

One other area we heard of in our travels, which I think is a good idea, is that we are an international trading country, but we have all kinds of nebulous trade actions for one reason or other. I know we're having difficulty getting vegetables right now into Trinidad and Tobago. We should have been shipping potatoes into Russia all year. By the time our bureaucracy moves, the shipping season is over. Do you see any ways of dealing with that? One group suggested that maybe we should have a cross-departmental quick response team that is prepared overnight to investigate, take action, and have the full authority of the government in doing that. What are your thoughts on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

A quick response, please, because Mr. Easter's time has expired.

[Bob Friesen]

We discussed this at our last trade committee meeting, exactly how we could develop a faster response. You can't do something almost as a preemptive strike, but yes, you could respond more quickly with resulting trade action, much like they do in the U.S., where they impose, say, an anti-dumping tariff and then they do the determination of injury. So, yes, we could be more responsive and respond more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bellavance, vous avez huit minutes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Friesen, through you, I would like to congratulate your team for this document, that I just can't put down: “A Canadian Farm Bill: A New Vision for Canadian Agriculture”. I think this should be required reading for a minister of agriculture. Please extend my congratulations to your team and your partners who are responsible for publishing this document. It contains very good advice, as well as a vision. And is a new vision for agriculture not something that we are all seeking? That is what we often heard when the committee toured Canada to discuss an upcoming strategic framework for agriculture. We were told that we needed to develop some type of vision. We are up against some heavy hitters, like the Americans and the European Union, and that is why we are wondering where we stand and what we want to accomplish.

Your paper states that the next generation of agricultural policy must identify and strengthen those mechanisms that work to maintain farm incomes and bargaining power in the marketplace including cooperatives, collective marketing, supply management and its three pillars and the Canadian Wheat Board. You are no doubt aware of the great concern that has been expressed about supply management and its three pillars and the Canadian Wheat Board. Again today, this was the subject of a question that was asked in the House, and, as usual, in his response, the Minister of Agriculture attempted to downplay the problem. With respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, I believe that the government's intention is clear. So we have every reason to be concerned about supply management as well, particularly in light of the comments that were made by the Minister of International Trade.

I am not sure if you have read the very recently published study by the Fraser Institute that was written in part by Messrs. Preston Manning and Mike Harris. Among other things, this study recommends abolishing supply management outright. We know what side Mr. Manning and Mr. Harris are on, we are familiar with the position of the current government, we are aware of what Minister Emerson said in the Western Producer.

It is all very well to say, here in Canada as well as abroad, that we want to protect supply management and we don't want to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board, but how optimistic are you? Do you think the current government should be given a free hand when it comes to protecting our assets?

[Bob Friesen]

One of the things that CFA members absolutely are very strong on is that the supply management marketing structures work and we need to continue to maintain them. We need to have a very strong negotiating position at the WTO because we do believe that there is a way of negotiating that will maintain supply management, that will not undermine supply management, but that will also give us significant market access improvements for our exporters. On that front, we believe that in fact Canada has more of a free trade position than many of the other countries do at the WTO, and the tools are still there in place, even within the Hong Kong ministerial declaration that we can continue to negotiate that way.

Supply management is a structure, and I'm not surprised what came out of the Fraser Institute. It is something that academics, to a large extent, don't like. Supply management has proven in the past that it's a way of farmers getting more money from the middle without it necessarily resulting in an increased price to the consumer, so it accrues more of the middle dollar back to the farm gate. The way we run it in Canada is it's done through a negotiation between farmers and the downstream industry, so it works very well.

However, the document, as far as our strategic growth pillar is concerned, yes, says that we need to maintain the three pillars for supply management, but we have other ways of empowering farmers in the marketplace as well. We still have some single-desk selling in Canada. In fact, in Quebec, the wheat industry just recently implemented single-desk selling. We have voluntary marketing boards, and we have some very good, strong voluntary marketing boards across Canada, and then we have the co-op system. And we believe we need to do whatever we can to strengthen the co-op system, because again, we think that's a way to empower farmers and to accrue some of the benefits of being involved in the downstream industry back to the farm gate as well.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Do you trust the government to promote what is in your paper, particularly as it applies to supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board?

[Bob Friesen]

The government has told us quite often that they support supply management. The minister has told us quite often that he supports developing a policy environment within which farmers can be more successful. He said that about the biofuel industry. I believe he's also a firm proponent of the co-op system to help empower farmers.

I think everybody realizes that the income problem we have in agriculture at the primary production level is a result of us not having adequate policy in place to empower producers and make sure they can produce at a profit. We have no reason to believe that the government isn't committed to helping us fix that and to maintain the three pillars for supply management.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I would like to discuss your proposal to promote Canadian farm products. I think it is an excellent initiative. We have been hearing about it for some time now, yet just recently, we were told of some rather sad examples of products that were labelled ''Made in Canada''. People buy products that they think have been made here, but, as it turns out, only the jar and the cover are made in Canada. The rest, the product, for example, pickles, that are in the jar, obviously come from another country. I have just had a glass of apple juice. The container might have said ''Made in Canada'' but the apples may have come from China. When the committee travelled across the country, I learned that there were olives that were labelled ''Made in Quebec''. The only olive trees I have ever seen were in paintings depicting Jesus in his time. We have a problem.

How do we counter this way of doing things, how do we prevent the companies from taking licence and labelling just about anything ''Made in Canada''? People choose to buy these products because they think they are helping to support our industries. I would like to prohibit the use of the little green sticker on these products. How do we go about stopping this trend?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bellavance's time has expired.

You may make a quick response.

[Bob Friesen]

Canadian farmers are very concerned about what you've just talked about, especially the horticulture industry. That's why we would like to identify Canadian products, so the Canadian consumers, given some of the other fears they have due to what has happened in the past, can identify Canadian production. With all the time and energy spent on implementing on-farm food safety programs, we also need to make sure that retailers are loyal to Canadian producers, rather than importing products when they have no idea of the standards under which they were produced.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Miller is next for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. I have one comment before I ask my first question.

Supply management has been supported by every party in the House of Commons, and that is most important. Certainly to this government I think that has been proven. Any comparison to anything else is simply fear-mongering by some political parties and some farm organizations.

Bob, you mentioned supply management as a BRM. I know I can take it in the context of our existing supply management. Were you in some way suggesting that there should be more supply management? Maybe you could expand on that, as I wasn't clear on it.

[Bob Friesen]

Supply management has told us they feel they have a policy in place that stabilizes their income and makes their industry more predictable and profitable. They're saying they don't want to be part of the top tiers of CAIS. They want to be part of the disaster program, because you can also have a disaster in supply management. They're saying they don't want to have part of the stabilization money; just define their policy as one that is already a business risk management program.

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

Thanks.

Ms. Dewar, one of your comments was about splitting the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. It's something I've thought of many times, because in some ways it can beat down really looking after agriculture at the grassroots.

What existing department--if there is one, in your opinion--should it go with if government decided to split the two?

[Denise Dewar]

I think we would see the existing department continue to exist, but we'd like to see it take a broader mandate.

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

I'm talking about the agrifood portion of it. Would you add that or make it a separate one on its own?

[Denise Dewar]

We recommend agriculture, food, and bioresources, and keeping them together, but adding the bioresource mandate to indicate that agriculture is not just about food and feed anymore; it's also about solutions for the bio-economy.

If you look at what industries can be drivers of the bio-economy, which is where we're going today, agriculture and forestry are your two key industries. We think Agriculture Canada is naturally positioned to add bioresources to their name and to send the signal to Canadians that agriculture is a solution provider to the bio-economy and also to food and feed production. Thus the name, Agriculture, Food, and Bioresources Canada. It really sends the signal that agriculture is about providing solutions to other sectors.

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

You're not suggesting that Agriculture and Agri-Food be separated at all?

[Denise Dewar]

No.

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

Okay, then I won't ask you any more about that.

Continuing on the biofuels and what have you, there was an article...I won't bother reading it because of time, but it was put out by the Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy. It's basically saying that in the not very far future, biofuels aren't going to be a great benefit. That's just in a nutshell what I think they were saying.

What are your comments on that as far as where you see long-term financial viability and sustainability for farmers is concerned? Is it short-term gain?

Anyone else can enlarge on that if they want.