Evidence of meeting #40 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was livestock.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Good morning and welcome.Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Gilroy, this is not the first time we have met. I seem to remember that, last time we saw each other, you brought us Ontario apples. I see that, today, there unfortunately aren't any apples. I'm just kidding.
Your testimonies are very valuable to us when we're reviewing programs. You're in the field, you're directly affected by all the risk management programs.
Mr. Mutch, if you don't mind, I would like to ask you a question about the Advance Payments Program. I just want to know whether, in Prince Edward Island, you were faced with the same situation as we were in Quebec. On August 6, the minister announced that a stay of default would be applied to the Advanced Payments Program. During the discussions with the Department of Agriculture, Quebec producers understood that no retroactive penalties would be applied to producers. Prior to the August 6 announcement, and even once the announcement had been made, the producers were under this impression. Afterwards, we learned that a retroactive penalty would apply to producers who sign a repayment agreement.
On November 18, the minister appeared before the committee. I asked him about this matter, and he told us that there was a penalty, but that it was not very high. It was set at one-quarter of 1%. I agree that it's not a very high penalty. However, I was wondering whether producers from the rest of Canada also thought there would be no penalty, until it was suddenly announced that there would be one.
I would like to hear your opinion on this subject.
9:25 a.m.
President, Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture
Yes, I think it was our understanding as well that there would be no penalty. The penalty that was originally stated would have been more than it is. I think the minister has reduced the penalty from what it previously was, so that's a help.
But getting back to the repayment, it's our position as producers that to be asked to repay $100,000 or $200,000 over a 10-month period...with the state of our industry, it's going to be impossible for us to do that. It's going to force more people out of business.
I think if government is really concerned about our industry and keeping what we have left, this proposed program that they announced is just another nail in the coffin for the producers who are still struggling out there.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Gilroy, earlier, you were telling us that the AgriRecovery program had been useful to your producers in the aftermath of certain natural disasters, such as tornados.
You are eligible for AgriRecovery because AgriStability is currently working for you. The Olympic average of the AgriStability program is currently high enough to allow you to benefit from this program in the areas of truck farming and horticultural production. However, you could just as well be ruled ineligible for this program, as was the case for cash crop producers with low averages over a 10-year period. The fact remains that this is the kind of program under which you could have not benefited from the assistance you received following the tornado had the natural disaster been preceded by several poor or average years.
I would like to know what you think about this.
In the case of AgriStability, many testimonies echoed what you said when we discussed the program for agricultural stabilization. Witnesses have said that we should, at least, take into account production costs in order to avoid outcomes where certain categories of producers are unable to benefit from the program for several years.
Is your opinion of the CAIS program still de same as it was in the past?
9:30 a.m.
Chair, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association
There certainly are challenges with AgriStability, the suite of programs, when it comes to financial support for horticultural producers. They are intended to take out the valleys, but you have to have those peaks to make the valleys significant enough for the program to pay out. What's happening in horticulture is we're seeing that the cost of production is rising so quickly and market returns are not keeping pace. Generally speaking, horticultural farmers' ability to access those safety net programs is all but gone.
We are in a financial squeeze that, as you've heard from these other people here today, is very significant. In Ontario our apple acreage in 1994 was 34,000 acres, and next year we're anticipating it to be below 12,000 acres. It's coming out fast and furious, mainly because the cost of production, market returns--there's not enough in between to justify doing it anymore. That's the bottom line with a lot of us. It's sad, but it is true.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Ms. Oliver, I will move on to you now.
Your testimony basically echoes many of the comments we have heard, not only during the study—because we have not really held that many meetings on the issue—but also in the past. We also organized tours, such as our tour concerning young farmers, during which we met many people.
I was saying that your testimony is very interesting, since it has many points in common with testimonies we received during a tour that we recently went on regarding young farmers and also testimonies we received since the committee began studying the program reviews.
The sad thing about livestock producers is that they currently find themselves in the most difficult situation of all members of the agricultural community, whether in Quebec or in Canada, especially in your region of the country.
I got a lot of my information from a cross-Canada survey conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. This survey of over 1,000 farmers compiled some very interesting statistics.
The study indicates that, when it comes to AgriStability, livestock producers benefited the least from the program. There is a problem there, since 70% of livestock producers participated in the program. That doesn't mean that they received any compensation, even though the program does, in fact, apply to them. Livestock producers feel that it's not really worthwhile to try to get assistance through the AgriStability program.
In your opinion, how can the program be modified to really meet the livestock producers' needs?
9:30 a.m.
As an Individual
Who says AgriStability doesn't work? After I e-mailed my speech in here, I got a cheque on my 2003 AgriStability program year--$146, and another one for $778. It was a mistake that they had made on the 2003...and I got it on Friday.
We have been in a disaster year for so many years because of BSE, and the prices were.... Those negative margins are sitting in there now. If my reference margin is a negative $2,000, and in a certain year my margin is negative $3,000, if you take a negative two minus a negative three, it gives you a positive one, which means you don't need any money.
The problem that BSE has left us with is those negative margins, and if you have three negative margins in there, you just don't qualify. You have to have two positive margins in there. I can see why they would do that, because if you are an inefficient farmer and year after year after year you are not making any money, you should be gone. But year after year after year we were in a negative margin position because the prices were so low and it was absolutely beyond our control. We couldn't do anything about it. We just sat there and vegetated. We could not make proper business decisions. We could not do things the way we wanted to do them. For instance, instead of cleaning out the corrals, we had to pile it in the corrals and just leave it to sit. That's not a good thing, because for one thing, water collects in there, there's extra disease.
When you're dealing with live animals and you don't make good business decisions, there are always problems that come back to bite you. That's the problem that cow-calf producers have had.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you to all of you for being here.
Linda, we've received correspondence from you before on this. I'm glad you're here to talk about this. We're here because we'd like to work with you to try to fix this, so we can give some recommendations to the government so this doesn't happen again.
I find it disturbing when you say in your report that you spoke with Jim Scott in the minister's office and he said that unfortunately, AgriStability does not work in this situation. The other thing that bothers me here is when you say, “Our livestock organizations have not been a voice for us.”
It doesn't seem to make sense. If something is not working for a producer, and you belong to an organization...has nothing happened in that regard from the Cattlemen's Association?
9:35 a.m.
As an Individual
No, which is why I am a long way away from my comfortable element.
After AgriStability did not work, and we had a year like this, I started looking around, and I couldn't believe that cow-calf producers could be left out in the cold.
Our organizations, for one thing, should be taking care of the whole livestock sector. I don't understand why they didn't look at the cow-calf producers and say, “Wow, those guys at the bottom are in a lot of trouble; we'd better do something.” I was told, and I stand by whatever I say, that they cannot go into the agriculture minister's office and criticize, or they cannot criticize publicly or openly, because if they do, the door will be closed to them. They have a silent agreement that if the agriculture minister's office does something good, they praise him, and if they do something bad, they don't praise him; they don't say anything.
For every animal we sell at auction, there are $2 deducted from that cheque for each animal. One dollar goes to our local organization, which is the Saskatchewan Cattlemen's Association, and one dollar goes to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. I can't apply to have that $2 not taken off my cheque. Really, the organization has done nothing for me.
There is a fairly large cry from cow-calf producers, saying, what's the sense of letting them have that $2 off every animal we sell when they don't do anything? They will not speak, and they say they can't. They say their hands are tied. They say they're in caca up to here if they say anything. The agriculture ministers just won't let them back in.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
When I talk with the Cattlemen's Association, the feedback I get is that finally we're having a good year and things are going to be really good. We don't hear this kind of stuff from them. I think some of us on this side, at least, have concerns that some of these organizations are not being vocal enough or standing up for the producers.
9:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I'm a little stubborn by nature. When I see that someone is being wronged or something is not being done correctly, I'll speak up.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
When I was first elected, I think it was around 2006, we had another disaster in your province. At that time, the impression I got was that it was like a football being bounced between the provincial and federal governments: “It's your responsibility. No, it's your responsibility.”
Mr. Gilroy said, in regard to tornadoes, that the provincial government there has stepped in and the federal government has come in.
Is it a lack of will on the provincial government's part, or is nobody really taking responsibility? I don't understand this.
9:40 a.m.
As an Individual
It's so political. When you say that people aren't speaking up...my cow-calf producer friends are so tired of phoning our local agriculture minister's office. Unless you can really speak off the cuff, they just put you down and they put you off, because they're there to further their political agenda and they don't want to hear from us. They don't want to hear that AgriStability doesn't work and they don't want to hear that AgriRecovery...nothing was done for us.
The biggest problem is that the cow-calf producer traditionally never really asked for anything. We've survived our ups and downs, but with BSE so many years in a row and then a year like this.... Right now, in 2010, in Saskatchewan and in the disaster areas and in the wet pockets of the disaster areas, it's a matter of treating your animals humanely. It's very serious. Animals have to eat every day, 365 days. I don't like to pit the grain farmer against the cattle producer, and so many times that's what happens. I still use this phrase: you can put your dead grain in the bin and then you can go off and negotiate with the banker, you can negotiate with politicians, but cow-calf producers have to deal with those animals every day, and we have to deal with them very well.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Would it be fair to say that the program, as it's devised, is a one-size-fits-all? I heard this from fruit growers also. These programs may work for one sector, but they don't work for others. So would it be logical to assume that we should be trying to revamp them to be more flexible so that they can kick in when this disaster takes place in Saskatchewan?
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
In your opinion, should the federal government, then, be playing more of a leading role if the province is waffling? Sometimes it works well; when the province kicks in and the federal government comes in, it seems to work. In my riding there was a big slide, and it looked as if the province came in and the federal government was ready to come in, but it was a provincial initiative. What should happen if the province doesn't take that initiative? Does the federal government have to come in and say, “Look, this is the formula: we're going to do 60 or 40; let's get on with it”?
9:40 a.m.
As an Individual
The province has to make application to the federal government for AgriRecovery to kick in. I think it should be done at the provincial level because the intensity and the feeling and the knowledge are there. They don't have to drive very far to be able to see the disaster areas in Saskatchewan right now. Although Tim Highmoor did tell me that he was in my area--it wasn't until I think last week. He doesn't know how bad these pockets are. He hasn't been in those pockets. And it is a disaster.
We have shipped off a semi-load of cows to our son at Davidson. He comes from a very different area. He is at Davidson, Saskatchewan, and he comes from a very sandy area. He can buy all the bales he wants there for $25 a bale--big round bales. In our area they're at least $35 a bale. If we can't get into the fields to get our bales home...and those bales--well, the one area we haven't done the feed testing on--do not contain the nutrients because they were put up in October, past the haying season.
Do you want me to wrap up?
9:45 a.m.
As an Individual
Okay, sorry.
We will be sending off another load too, because we can't get the bales home; we can't afford to buy bales.
November 30th, 2010 / 9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for coming. I know it's always awkward to come out of the comfort of your home back in Saskatchewan or P.E.I. or Ontario and look at these weird guys in suits and ties and try to explain what's going on. So I really appreciate your doing that. I also really appreciate your testimony. It's always good to hear from the farm groups, and I'd rather hear from farmers than farm groups, because in a lot of ways farmers are the guys on the ground getting their hands dirty and doing the work. It's always a breath of fresh air in some ways.
It's really hard in this committee to start to filter or separate the wheat from the chaff in a lot of situations. We have to balance the needs of farmers, and the needs of taxpayers in a lot of cases too. That's why programs are developed in such a way that they're not meant to be long-term support programs or long-term social programs. They're meant to be bridging programs, where if something should happen, there's the ability to help the guy out so he can see the light at the end of the tunnel and get through that low spot and move forward.
Where I get a little concerned is when bridging programs become social programs, because that tells me something else has to change. That tells me the industry has changed or something else has changed structurally in your situation that forces you to make a decision you may not like to make. It's awkward. What's really awkward for legislators is, when is that period? Is it five years, seven years, ten years? When the industry has changed, how much should the taxpayers support you and for how long? That would be one of my first questions. The taxpayer can't justify supporting somebody forever; it just doesn't work that way in our society. If you can't change, or if you can't structurally change, then it's time to look at other things.
Brian, you talked about what you're seeing in the fruit industry, and that's exactly what is going on, it looks to me. It's sad to see in a lot of ways, because the old way always seems to be the best way, but the reality is that things change and we have to move forward.
I'll start with you, Ernie. In your situation—and not just in your situation, but the situation of P.E.I farmers—you took out an advance and had security on that advance. You did a priority agreement. Then you needed more cashflow. What did the government do? They said they'd give you the ability to have more money without a priority agreement—no security. How do you bridge back to a situation now where you start to pay it back? What's a reasonable timeframe?
