Agriculture Committee on May 17th, 2007

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

That takes me off on a bit of another direction, Mr. Chairman.

I'm really concerned that the NDP would see someone talking and discussing a motion and being prepared to make amendments to it as some sort of filibuster, because we're certainly not doing that.

Mr. Easter sees this motion as extremely important. I think it's important that we all give it time—and I think we're going to do that—and have a chance to discuss it and the amendments that will be made to it.

Mr. Angus, having left the committee, may not be interested in agricultural issues any more, as he once was, but I can assure him that the people here on the committee are taken with these things and want to talk about them, want to hear about them.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I know it's not a point of order, but are we staying all night?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Anderson has the floor.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We can't say for sure how long this will take, but I'm sure there's a lot of good discussion that's yet to take place.

As I was saying, we also set $50 million through the expanded criteria for negative margin coverage for CAIS, and this is something that really a lot of farmers needed, because that was going to help to cover some of those farmers who had deep losses.

One of the things that was good that has happened in terms of CAIS is that the CAIS deposit was eliminated and it was replaced with a producer fee, but participation costs have been waived entirely for 2003, for 2004, and for 2005, which makes programming more affordable for farmers. CAIS has had a problem throughout, as AIDA and CFIP did at times with overpayments to producers and then they were in a situation where they were required to pay some of that money back. Another thing we did is we deferred those CAIS clawbacks until January 1, 2000, with no interest being charged on overpayments. This was just one more thing that we wanted to do to try to protect farmers from what had happened to them in the past.

Actually, one of the things this committee worked on, Mr. Chair, which we worked constructively together on, was the improved cash advance program we put in place. It was called AMPA, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act. It came to this committee about a year ago, and we felt it was very important to expand the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, so we did that. We were able to work with government and opposition in order to move that quickly through the committee here, and then it moved quickly through the committee at the Senate as well, and it was brought into place. It expanded the coverage, Mr. Chair, to include livestock and additional crops; it increased the overall limits on advances from $250,000 to $400,000. I've had a lot of producers who have come back to me and told me that they really appreciated the opportunity to have access to that extra capital.

One of the good things that it did as well was it increased the amount of interest-free advances from $50,000 to $100,000, so in a time when our farmers were under tremendous pressure this government moved to find a way to give them access to more cash on a short, quick basis, so they've been able to take advantage of that program.

While we were waiting for that to come into place, we actually worked on the enhanced spring credit advance program, and that was put in place last year as an interim measure to try to tide farmers over until the new AMPA program was in place. It made a lot more money available to farmers through interest-free loans.

One of the things that's been important, and we've talked about it quite a bit at this committee, is the idea of production insurance. There's a strong feeling, as I think we heard as the committee travelled across Canada, that farmers have an interest in production insurance and making sure that they've got a good production insurance program. I know in my own province, our production insurance program is not seen as being a strong one. It's been frustrating for farmers to be able to take out what is 70% to 80% coverage on their crops but then to see that the prices and yield coverage are so low that it really doesn't give them any opportunity to be successful from using the program. So a lot of people have decided that they're not going to participate in that production insurance program, and it's been a bit frustrating.

I know that Alberta has a much stronger program. The province there has chosen to supplement the program, so they've made a stronger program out of that. I know that they've got some price and yield options that we certainly don't have in our province. When we were in Manitoba with the committee, we heard that the presenters there actually felt that their crop insurance program was a fairly strong one. One of the issues they had is they were wondering how it would be possible to extend that coverage to livestock, particularly to cattle. They saw that there might be some problems with that. So we continue to try to find ways to extend the production insurance program to include livestock and horticulture, and include other products that have not been included in the past.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a point of order. I wonder, could the parliamentary secretary give us an explanation of all the other provinces we travelled to as well, beyond Manitoba? Or maybe the fact is he wasn't there.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's not a point of order.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I was attending a funeral. I'm not sure if the member is trying to make some sort of sarcastic point here or not, but I guess that's what we have to deal with.

One of the programs the Liberals tried to cancel that we were able to get restored under them, because they finally caved in to the pressure of farmers asking for it to be maintained, was the Farm Improvement and Market Cooperatives Loans Act. It's known as FIMCLA. That's another program that's being maintained. It's not a big program, but an important one, particularly in areas where people are trying to build cooperatives and put them together.

We heard yesterday in Washington—I think Mr. Easter will acknowledge I was there—that cooperatives are important down there, particularly to the renewable fuels folks. We sat down at the Renewable Fuels Association, and they talked about the importance that cooperatives have played throughout the United States in the development of their ethanol industry over the last 15 to 20 years.

It was an exciting conversation to have with a person who's very optimistic about the future. Hopefully we can develop some of that same industry in this country and have some of the same successes that they've had in the United States.

Our friends from Quebec are taken care of as well. We know the golden nematode issue affected an area in Quebec. That was a devastating problem, and this government committed $5.5 million to assist those producers. It included $2 million in federal support through a new golden nematode disaster program and the Plant Protection Act, and another $3.4 million in federal payments through CAIS and renewal programs.

Those folks had a tough situation. After negotiations and sitting down to hear about their situation, this government was willing to commit money to their program.

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

Mr. Chairman, point of order. The money that was provided to the potato producers of Saint-Amable is insufficient. We need a long-term vision that will give these producers an opportunity to change their crops because they will never be able to grow potatoes again.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

The member is absolutely right, it does take a long-term vision, and that's part of what I want to lay out here today. I think we'll see that the family farm options program and the money that's available from it are going to play an important role in that long-term vision for agriculture.

We've gone into next generation consultations as well trying to find ways to get the next generation involved in agriculture and food policy. That's a real challenge. When we were down in the States, we heard that that they are having the same challenge of trying to get young people into their industry, and it's a challenge we continue to face.

I've been on the committee for a few years, and this issue has been part of the committee's discussion ever since I arrived. I think it was probably a big issue even before that.

This government showed its commitment to agriculture again this year with another $1 billion investment through budget 2007. This is the start of the new vision and the new direction that agriculture is going to take in this country. As the minister announced, this includes the implementation of the contributory-style producer savings accounts.

Many of our producers are familiar with NISA. They were very excited about having that program in the past. They were able to build up accounts, and then many of them used that to keep their farms going. The minister has come back and said that we want to take a look at that program and see how we can fit something like it into our present farm program system. So he came forward and said that we're going to take a look at contributory-style producers savings accounts to replace the top 15% of the income stabilization program.

Actually he was good and generous enough to say that program is going to be kick-started with a one-time payment of $600 million, which is an amazing thing. I think farmers are very grateful for that. This is one of the things I've heard the most positive comments about. People are excited to see some of these changes taking place, so they may have some programs here that are going to work for them in the future.

Out of that $1 billion, that $600 million was committed, so obviously this left another $400 million. That $400 million is going to be paid directly to producers to help address some of the cost of the production issues they face. We understand that especially this spring there has been a tremendous increase, particularly in fuel prices in the last month. Over the winter, fertilizer prices skyrocketed. Those folks who were not prepared to buy their fertilizer last fall have had a rough spring of being able to buy products.

So that $400 million is going to go towards helping address some of those cost-of-production issues. As well, we made a commitment to pay another $100 million annually to help address those cost-of-production issues.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I think the point that Mr. Anderson is making goes to the heart of the issue. It was on July 31, 2006, that the minister made a two-year commitment. Thousands of farmers, based on that two-year commitment, made financial planning decisions under the family farm options program. Then, after the fact, on April 20 of this year, the minister cancelled the program. So the fact that the minister talks cost of production or $600 million for anything else, how can we trust that it's going to be there? The proof is in the pudding. In terms of the family farm options program based to low-income farmers, the minister broke his word on his original announcement.

That's what this debate is all about. Those farmers are short money, advised so by their financial advisers, and the minister cancelled the program. This debate is about trust. It's not about the other programs they're talking about; it's about trust in the minister's word. When he announced a program last year, financial planners advised farmers to take use of it. Four months after the fact, the minister's word is broken by cancelling the program. That's what this issue is all about.

The parliamentary secretary can dream in technicolour all he likes, he can announce $5 billion, but does it mean anything? This is what we're talking about here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Well, I think the problem is that the member is thinking through the framework that the Liberals have had in the past, which is that they announce money time and time again and never deliver it. We have delivered the money. We heard, when the minister was here at committee, that this money will be redistributed and it will be committed to producers.

Actually, I think the member had asked if I was going to quote him. I'd like to quote him a little bit on what he said about this program:

My concern also is that you see the low uptake. You see exactly the same questions coming from at least three of the four parties, saying that they've heard from people that it isn't working and it's still in its pilot stage. Can't we be flexible enough, even as a public service, to say, okay, with a 10% uptake, clearly it's not working?

So that was the member's own comment about the program. The minister made a decision to listen to him and to take his advice. Now he's criticizing him for doing that.

Anyhow, it was in the nature of—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order.

Again, I'm new to this committee, so I just want to clarify. Mr. Anderson is the parliamentary secretary, is he not? I remember Wayne was the parliamentary secretary, and we used to ask him those kinds of questions, so I just want to know, has the position flipped?

Wayne, are you back to being the parliamentary secretary and we're quoting you?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Anderson, the parliamentary secretary, has the floor.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I think he wishes he could be, but he's not.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Is he going to table these statements that he's making? Could we have those tabled with the clerk?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I think if you had your staff do the work and look through the media, you can find them. I think I have four pages of them, so I'll read them out again, maybe later.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, he quotes a letter. I don't think it's on a website, that letter.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

No, I said “if you go to the media”. They're media quotes, Charlie. If you go to the media, I think you'd be able to find all of these quotes. I'll read them back to you a little bit later so you have another copy of them.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Can you give us the...? If it's a media quote, who, where?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We can certainly come back.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Where, what paper was it taken from?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Anderson, if you could supply it—