Agriculture Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Gary Koivisto]

You're correct that for the most part bringing Canadian hay into the United States is a relatively easy process, as the U.S. has very few quarantined pest concerns. In many cases hay can simply cross the border without any phytosanitary certification.

You described the situation where Canadian hay has gone down to the United States and, for whatever reason--and there could be lots of reasons--is returned to Canada. The problem arises that it's not an identified product. There's no label; it's a species. The American product and the Canadian product are indistinguishable. We have the same phytosanitary requirements for hay coming back in because we can't separate it. That's why we would ask for a phytosanitary certificate.

Depending on the region it comes back from--and it's difficult for me to be very precise with my answer without knowing the region--I can identify what the pest of concern is and be more definitive as to why the concern exists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you. Your time has expired. If you want to write Mr. Koivisto a letter, he'd probably respond to you.

That brings to a close this first hour of our meeting today. We will suspend while we change witnesses at the table and gear up for the next hour.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

We'll now continue with the second hour.

In the second hour this morning, folks, we have a briefing on horticultural sector and access to the business risk management program. With us this afternoon is the Canadian Horticultural Council, represented by Marcus Janzen, president. Welcome. We also have the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, represented by Len Troup, president, and Brenda Lammens, vice-chair. It's nice to see you folks. From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, it's a guy named Bob Friesen. Imagine that! Welcome.

We'll lead off with a short presentation, then we'll move into the questioning round. Keep it fairly concise if you can.

Len.

[Len Troup, President, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association]

Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity.

We are representing fruit and vegetable growers from Ontario. I'm going to deal with one issue here today. We're going to be very focused. I'm going to read my presentation, and then we'll get on with it.

My name is Len Troup, and I am the chair of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association. Brenda is my vice-chair. We are seeking your support for the extension of our self-directed risk management program, referred to as SDRM. This is to cover the 2006 and 2007 crop years. That's the crop we're already harvesting, plus the one coming next year.

This is Ontario horticulture's alternative to production insurance, and it has been used extensively by our fruit and vegetable growers for the past decade. At this point, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is refusing to extend this program, leaving many of our growers without coverage. A promise and guiding principle of the current APF, which commenced in 2003, is that all crops grown in Canada will have access to both CAIS and production insurance. Yet this promise has not been fulfilled. In fact, there has been little if any development of new production insurance programs in Ontario.

We are about to enter the fifth and final year of APF 1. Yet we do not have crop insurance coverage on many of the fruit and vegetable crops that we grow. Is this the fault of the growers? Absolutely not. It is the role of both Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to develop and deliver these programs, and they have failed to do so. At a meeting in Ottawa less than two weeks ago, AAFC admitted to having dropped the ball on this issue. If there is no change in the current position, it will be our producers who pay the price for this failure.

When the APF was initiated, it was known that the development of new production insurance for horticulture was not going to be easy. Horticulture does not fit the production insurance mould produced primarily for the grains and oilseeds sector. It was for that reason that SDRM was extended to cover the 2003, 2004, and 2005 crop years. It is also the reason that prompted Minister Lyle Vanclief, as he then was, to write to our industry.

This is a direct quote from a letter addressed to me in my past and current position as the chair of the Ontario Tender Fruit Producers' Marketing Board. The letter deals with concerns I had put to him prior to entering into the APF period. I quote:

The APF is performance-based and so, if governments and industry together cannot deliver on a commitment we will be obliged to look at alternatives. Before the end of three years, industry and governments will take stock of what insurance products have been developed to meet risks. If the products have fallen short, the scope may need to be broadened and alternatives, such as self-directed risk management or variations, may need to be considered. I am sure that we all want to give the development of new insurance products the best possible opportunity. I have, therefore asked Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials to work with their provincial counterparts to propose a plan to agriculture ministers on how we can work multilaterally—with crop insurance agencies, agriculture departments, industry and other outside experts—to pool ideas and develop new ones in order to reach our goal. I do not want to fall short because we did not give it enough effort.

That was a letter to me responding to my concerns prior to going into the APF. That was a commitment from the Minister of Agriculture, and with that commitment in hand, we went in. But that commitment is being ignored, and that's why we are here today to seek your support in overcoming this inequity. We ask only that the government of this country follow through on a commitment, made at the outset of the APF, to provide all producers across this country with access to both CAIS and production insurance and, if a program could not be developed by the end of three years--and one has not--then to consider a program such as SDRM.

We believe the government has made a commitment to our industry. It is a moral, if not legal, obligation to follow through on that commitment. Many of our producers have no form of production insurance available to them. This is not because they don't want it or because they don't need it, but because government has not provided a program to them.

The government will tell us that SDRM is not production insurance in its purest form because it is not premium paid; nevertheless, SDRM is comparable to production insurance in the minds of the growers, and our members need some form of coverage, be it traditional or otherwise. As we enter the fifth and final year of APF 1, it is most probable that no new production insurance programs will be available to our members.

IBM Consulting stated in their August 2006 report to government that if we were to have new programs available by 2008—that's for the 2008 crop year—we had to start to develop them by now. Note that I said 2008, not 2007. So we're not looking forward to any change in 2007—which means more of nothing.

I'm sure you will agree that it is government's role to develop these new programs and that it is obvious they have failed to do so. It is unacceptable to our members that SDRM—their form of crop insurance—has been taken away and replaced with nothing more than a broken or empty promise of production insurance coverage.

Our request for the federal government to contribute their 60% share to the extension of SDRM would fulfill the government's commitment to our industry at the outset of the APF. It does not give our industry any more coverage than other crop producers already have and take for granted. It does not guarantee prices for market; it is simply a workable alternative to production insurance.

As a signatory of the APF, the Ontario government has recognized both the commitment made and its obligation to follow through on that commitment; it has already extended its share of the funding towards an SDRM extension to cover crop years 2006 and 2007. These are the years that we're asking the federal government to cover.

We need the federal government to do the same, to extend its share of funding for SDRM for 2006 and 2007. The government needs to honour the commitment made to our industry at the outset of the APF, that all producers of all crops have some form of production insurance coverage available to them; that's all we're asking. Just do what you said you would do. I think you will agree that we are not asking for much in the way of dollars. The cost to the federal government is approximately $7 million annually. What we are asking is that they deliver on their commitment to our industry.

I thank you.

We're all ready for questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Len.

Marcus.

[Marcus Janzen, President, Canadian Horticultural Council]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to provide some of horticulture's thoughts, concerns, and suggestions relating to business risk management and the serious challenges facing Canada's horticulture sector.

I'm a fourth-generation farmer. Prior to 1999, we had a farrow-to-finish hog farm. In 2000, we moved into greenhouse production. We own and operate a 10-acre pepper greenhouse in the beautiful Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

Before speaking to business risk management, I'd like to just offer a brief overview of our organization and horticulture's relevance within Canadian agriculture.

The Canadian Horticulture Council, or CHC, is a voluntary, not-for-profit national association that has represented the sector since 1922. Members are primarily involved in the production and packing of over 150 fruit and vegetable crops. Horticulture also includes the highly diversified floral and ornamental sector, with more than 1,500 nursery crops being grown in Canada.

Members include provincial and national horticulture commodity organizations representing more than 25,000 producers in Canada, as well as allied and service organizations, provincial governments, and individual producers.

CHC has a singular mandate: to be a strong and active presence in Ottawa on behalf of the sector by bringing issues of importance to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other federal and provincial ministers and departments, as directed by our membership. Our mission is a commitment to advance the growth and economic viability of horticulture.

Canadian horticulture is a $5 billion industry at the farm gate level, and that's before considering both upstream and downstream impacts of horticulture production on jobs, economic activity, and taxes paid to various levels of governments. Of the $5 billion, exports represent $3.2 billion. Farm cash receipts for horticulture are greater than those of grains and oilseeds in seven out of 10 provinces.

Production, packing, and processing of Canadian horticulture crops generates significant contributions to the Canadian economy, and as a result of these linkages, $29 billion of economic activity is generated annually. This activity generates employment for 200,000 full-time workers with associated wages and salaries of $8 billion. And of the $29 billion in activity generated, just under $3 billion flows to governments in the form of tax revenues.

The Canadian horticulture industry, as with many other agrifood sectors and the consumer product sector in general, has had to adapt to several factors: increased globalization of trade; the emergence of low-cost offshore supply sources, like China and Chile; advances in information technology; increased regulation; buyer consolidation; and a dramatic increase in the value of the Canadian dollar. These changes have led to a chronic decline in profit margins in primary horticulture.

While I acknowledge that hardship within agriculture is widespread--beef and grain are two examples that come immediately to mind--I must note that many areas of horticulture have experienced similar price declines. In addition, phytosanitary issues like sudden oak death, plum pox virus, and potato wart have been devastating, and for many commodities, the margins have eroded to zero while costs have continued to escalate.

One of the founding principles and commitments of the business risk management component of the APF was a commitment that all commodities produced in Canada would have both access to production insurance and CAIS. While much has been said about CAIS, and no doubt the dialogue will continue, of specific concern to us is the concept that CAIS is a margin-based program, and margins are continuing to decline, and that CAIS may work for some commodities right now, but it won't in the future. At the same time, costs continue to rise, and revenues for many commodities are declining.

Second, there is the concept of imputing. It is not reasonable to deem a producer to have crop insurance when the program does not in fact exist. Production insurance does not exist for the majority of horticulture crops, and many of the programs that do exist are not effective.

CAIS as structured, on a whole-farm basis, does not help manage risk particularly. A grower of three or four commodities will see one offset the other, resulting in a slow but steady overall farm decline.

The CHC and its members have long supported self-directed risk management. At the 1999 AGM, a letter of support was signed by all CHC members to the minister of the day, Lyle Vanclief, and this support continues, by resolution, to this day.

SDRM is not intended to replace production insurance but rather to offer an alternative where production insurance does not exist. SDRM is a program that could in fact be extended to other commodities, such as livestock production. It's important to remember that a core principle of the APF is that all commodities are to have production insurance coverage, and Mr. Troup has elaborated on that very well.

I offer caution when it comes to the determination of a successful program. Several of the programs that are now in place are referred to as successful by the department. Producers are astute business managers and they will subscribe to a program if it is financially sustainable.

We recommend that programs should only be deemed successful if a meaningful number of acres of that particular commodity is enrolled. Furthermore, a program cannot be deemed successful if producers are enrolled simply as a result of “cross-compliance”--that is, access to other programs being contingent on enrolment in a production insurance program that is deemed by industry to be ineffective.

The APF committed to provide both production insurance and CAIS to producers. The commitment to production insurance has not been met. The Canadian producers are heavily impacted by onerous and multi-faceted regulatory requirements; and while producers are quite willing to do the right thing, whether it be by regulation or a voluntary basis, we find that we are often doing so with no compensation. Food safety is certainly an example.

Programs are being developed and implemented at the farm level, yet producers are not being compensated for these investments. Continued market access is not a sufficient return on investment. Access to labour in this country is reaching a crisis level, particularly in horticulture, where much of the work is labour-intensive, seasonal, and difficult to mechanize. Many of our competitors in other countries pay wages of $2 or $7 a day and are not subject to the same labour standards as Canadian employers must comply with.

Programs that have been in place, while appreciated, have not met our needs, and we must all accept the challenge to collectively develop and put in place programs that will ensure the future of agriculture in Canada. We must be committed to a secure and sustainable domestic food supply to assure food security as a country. We cannot rely on importing the majority of our basic food requirements. Regardless of the nature of horticulture, whether it be small acreage and diverse specialized crops or large monoculture farms, it is an integral part of the agricultural industry in Canada and needs to have a plan in place that recognizes coverage of all our crops under an effective SDRM program.

The need for government support and effective business risk management has never been greater. Horticulture producers are at an impasse, and in order to establish an orderly business climate, there must be a suite of programs to access and use for coverage.

Horticulture production is not about planting one day and harvesting a few weeks later. It is about investment, and it is about long-term planning that provides mutual benefit both for farmers and for Canadian society as a whole.

The reality of farming in Canada today is that 10% of our producers generate 90% of the production. Canada's farm policy aims to support both groups--that is, both large and small producers--simultaneously. However, it is failing because policies need to be directed towards each group separately. Simply put, Canada's farm programs are not working properly and changes must be made to remedy the situation.

For every dollar invested in agriculture, $10 is generated in the business economy. For every job on the farm, 10 jobs are created in supply and service industries. Furthermore, the three levels of government in this country benefit from the collection of between $500 and $900 an acre worth of taxes every year.

Given the attention being paid to the health and well-being of Canadians and the associated costs, we have tremendous opportunities to provide solutions through the products we produce. Fruits and vegetables form a key part of a healthy diet and are known to reduce disease risks. This important fact is supported and promoted by many organizations, including the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

Agriculture is a tremendous asset that must be protected, and we are committed to working with you to find solutions. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Marcus.

Bob, do you have a presentation for us?

[Bob Friesen, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here to speak to the people around this table, because I know that everybody is keenly interested in making agriculture work better in Canada.

Let me begin by saying that I support what the horticulture industry has just talked about. CFA members supported the principle of SDPI quite some time ago. It would work better in the event of margin decline as a result of imports that haven't been produced within the same standards of environment and food safety we have in Canada. It would also help where there aren't adequate production insurance programs, or where it's too complicated to try to develop them.

You have a brief in front of you, and I'm not going to read it. I'm going to make some brief comments on it and then look forward to questions.

All of you know that Canadian farmers are coming out of the absolutely worst three years of farm income in history, and 2006 looks even worse. They continue to compete against U.S. farmers, who are coming out of the best three years of net income in their history. It may surprise you to know that I'm not here today to ask for more money. How much more money we'll have to invest in agriculture is still outstanding, but what isn't outstanding is that we believe we have to be much more strategic in how we spend the money on agriculture. In that context we have a few suggestions.

When we look to the U.S. we find exactly the same thing. Of course they spend more money, but it isn't just how much you spend; it's how you spend it. Let me say--and this was mentioned earlier by the horticulture industry--we believe in keeping CAIS as the base program, because it does work much better for some commodities than others.

There's been a lot of talk in the recent past about how we can separate stabilization from income disaster. We need to explore the merit of replacing the top 15% tier of CAIS with a NISA-like program. You may know that farmers were dragged kicking and screaming to the elimination of NISA some years ago when the APF was implemented. If we had a NISA-like top tier, it would be much more bankable and predictable. In the event of margin decline, because a contributory program is based on sales, it would also be a baby step toward addressing the declining margin issue. There's a long list of what we believe are advantages in going to a more bankable and predictable top tier in CAIS.

Farmers were also dragged kicking and screaming to the elimination of companion programs. We believe that a provision for companion programs should be brought back as well, because one national program cannot address all the provincial-specific or regional-specific needs. We would like to create the ability for provinces to develop companion programs that would address provincial-specific needs.

The paper you have in front of you demonstrates that NISA might not cost more to the government. Bringing back companion programs might not cost the government more money either--of course, it works well within what was just suggested by the horticulture industry. Because companion programs would be provincial-specific case offset, an aggregate might not cost more money. So we would like to see companion programs brought back.

My last point is on declining margins, which we really have to address. This hits especially hard right now in the grains and oilseeds sector. I was talking earlier about the strategy the U.S. has adopted. With the money they spend they prime the pump in agriculture, and that has cross-subsidized into the value-added industries, such as hog feeding, cattle feeding, and the biofuel industry. We need to spend more time and attention on the grains and oilseeds sector, because we continue to have high hopes and build on our strong hog and cattle industry. We also want to build a strong biofuel industry. So in the declining margin area, we certainly need to spend more time.

We have some of the most competitive farmers in the world and we would like, together with everybody, to roll up our sleeves and develop a more competitive policy so that our farmers can be more effective in the international marketplace and in the domestic market.

As I said earlier, Mr. Chair, I would be happy to answer questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you.

We'll move to the round of questioning.

Mr. Steckle, we'll go to five minutes because we're short of time.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Very quickly, I think it's fair to say that in the case of farm programs we've always attempted—and I guess it was manifested in the CAIS program—to develop a program that fit everyone's situation, no matter what part of the country they lived in, and that simply isn't possible to do.

On risk management, the self-directed risk management program that you've talked about, Mr. Troup, there was an experiment for three years, I believe, and now it's run out. Why would we not continue with that program, given that it had met some degree of satisfaction by you people, at least? Why would we not continue with that?

[Len Troup]

Actually, that program was in use for about a decade. It evolved in the 1990s because there was a void. It was driven by the horticulture sector and it was offered across the country. It was only picked up in Ontario and it was very popular. The growers jumped all over it because it was something that worked instead of something that didn't. Unfortunately, it went down with NISA.

However, as the letter from Mr. Vanclief alludes to, to give us some assurance because we were getting clobbered when NISA came in--we were losing everything, and we did--he gave us three more years on the SDRM to kind of soften the blow, coming in with a promise that if nothing else was developed, it would be extended. The three years were a sure thing, but guess what? The federal government now wants to avoid the issue and say it's not pure insurance. They're simply dodging the bullet. But the commitment was there, and that's why we came in.

To their credit, and I'm not trying to beat up on anyone here, the province, given the same information, accepts their responsibility and they're in. They're in for 2006 and 2007. Hopefully, by 2008, as we go into the next APF, we can have a more long-term solution. That is why they went in for two years.

I'm here specifically to address the one issue. I agree with everything everybody else is saying, but it's a proven program. The farmers like it. It actually works. It's easy to administer, and it's a whole lot better than nothing. What we're being offered is nothing, and we're not going to take it. That letter from the Minister of Agriculture to me, to answer my concerns, I take as a commitment from the government, not only from Mr. Vanclief. Frankly, I expect the government to honour that commitment. And I'd like to hear why they don't.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Business risk management is something that we're talking about. We know that every province has various ways. Alberta can deal with situations on an ad hoc basis differently from Saskatchewan, for instance. Ontario deals with issues differently from the Maritimes. That's why one program doesn't fit every situation. I think we have to be cognizant of that and, in moving forward, recognize that.

We've talked about business risk management. Even in a sector such as the cattle industry, they're talking about things like that. They don't call it crop insurance or production insurance, but they like to think there might be a better way of dealing with some of these emergency situations.

My contention is that Canada has never had a food policy. We always talk about agricultural policy, but we don't talk about a food policy. It is my contention that we cannot have an ag policy without having a food policy. If we have a strategy for food production in this country, where we believe and are firmly committed to supporting the production of safe food for Canadians rather than becoming a dependent nation on others to produce that food for us, we will need good ag policy. If we come to that core issue and support that, then we will find these programs that will make it work. They'll work differently in different provinces and for different commodities, but I believe that is the core.

Would you agree with that principle, which I think is so fundamentally important, or is it something way out there in la-la land that doesn't meet with anyone's approval?

[Bob Friesen]

You mentioned BSE. One of the things I wanted to say is that there is an additional BSE-like disaster component being developed for CAIS. It doesn't necessarily provide deeper coverage, but it provides broader coverage in that it might include business interruption, although that would of course to some extent be a CAIS offset as well. It includes looking at the infrastructure if the infrastructure needs redevelopment. So in the event of disasters such as BSE or AI, that component would be triggered.

That is not separating stabilization from income disaster, but it is an additional component that we certainly support.

As far as a food policy is concerned, food security in Canada is extremely important when you consider--and I believe it was Mr. Miller who talked about it earlier--bringing in products from other countries and not having the same confidence in that product as you would if it was produced within our own standards. But farmers, to a large extent, have already done many things around which you could build a food policy, such as the implementation of on-farm food safety programs, environmentally sustainable programs, and things of that nature.

So I believe that in the primary production sector a lot of steps have already been taken around which you could build a very effective, solid food policy.

[Madam Brenda Lammens, Vice-Chair, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association]

If I may, I think we need to address the SDRM, because if we don't have some type of insurance there won't be many of us left around to produce the food and so the policy won't be necessary.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

If you had the food policy first and believed in it, then we would support that food policy by an SDRM or whatever we want to name the program. You have to have a reason for having a program. We want farmers to continue to produce safe food in this country, and if we don't have that, then basically what are we building around?

[Madam Brenda Lammens]

As Mr. Friesen said, we already do have many programs in place and we're continuing to develop--

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

But consumers have to understand that. The consumers have to understand why they're paying and may have to pay more for their food.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thanks, Paul.

Mr. Bellavance, five minutes, please.

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

Thank you for your presentations.

I'm always very interested in hearing what those directly involved, the farmers, have to say. I look upon them as the experts. We, the politicians, sometimes have a tendency to come up with ready-made solutions, to believe that we can solve everyone's problems and that we know everything, when in fact the opposite is true. It's important to meet with front-line workers and to find out from them what's working, and what isn't, so that we can go back to the government powers-that-be and lobby for the right changes.

Unfortunately, the message doesn't always manage to get through to governments. Remember the case of the CAIS program . The government that took office nine months ago pledged during the election campaign to overhaul the CAIS program. All kinds of promises were made and to date, nothing has been done.

You're telling us today that in many instances, growers do not have access to insurance and that nothing has really changed at all. You've proposed some very interesting solutions, but how do you explain the fact that nine months later, the government has yet to respond?

[Len Troup]

I don't know if I can explain anything. I'm not being totally political here. I'm not really anti one government and pro another. That's not what I'm all about, because we've had problems with more than one government down the road. And governments change but the problems don't, and that's really what's wrong.

Incidentally, we do have a food policy, and it's called cheap. It's not written in stone, but it's sure written in blood. It's really easy for any government to do, because when you do it, you obtain cheap food through an open border policy. We have to compete with everybody in the world on price and we have to be above everybody in the world on all the quality and safety standards. We also operate in a high-cost country where we pay minimum wages and all those other things.

So there is a policy: it's cheap food, and everybody likes it. Any government that wants to run against that policy puts themselves at great risk, because every consumer, including me and all of us, never like to pay more than we have to for a product. That is just our nature. So there is a policy, but I think what we need is a long-term policy that is sustainable. And cheap is not sustainable, because you're killing the farmers, and without farmers you don't have anybody. So something has to give here.

We're offering short-term solutions. The SDRM is a really obvious one. There's really no excuse for that being abandoned by any government, because we had something that worked. They took it away and they gave us nothing in return. This is very shortsighted, but they hide behind the bureaucrats, who come in and say, “Well, it doesn't technically fit the mould.” I don't want to hear that. It works. The farmers like it. It's not expensive. Why don't we do it? What we need are common-sense solutions, and you're right, the farmers lots of times have the solutions, but nobody wants to hear them. We always get blocked. Our opinion is collectively heard, but nobody responds, and we're here appealing to the common-sense element. We give you a common-sense solution, but why don't we just do it? I think we need more just doing it and less talk.

I don't think I answered your question, but I feel better.

[Bob Friesen]

With regard to making changes, there have been quite a few improvements already made to the CAIS program over the last little while. They're looking at expanded negative margin coverage. We're looking at the change in the inventory evaluation. We're looking at an additional disaster component for disasters such as BSE and AI, but we're simply saying that's good, we support those improvements, but we can do more. We can address the issue of separating stabilization from income disaster. We can do that. We can bring companion programs back at very little extra cost or possibly no extra cost and improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the program to make it more bankable, more predictable, more efficient, and more strategic.

Then of course, we do have to address the declining margin issue in the grains and oilseeds sector.

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

Often, the government institutes Canada-wide programs with very strict criteria that allow for little flexibility.

Each time we talk with agricultural producers, we hear very much the same story about plant products. Mr. Janzen also spoke about this. If you talk to Quebec grain growers, they will tell you that this type of program lacks flexibility. Given that these programs have been around for some time now, how do you explain the fact that the government still hasn't grasped the need for flexible programs? You have proposed solutions and supplied explanations. You know the percentages and the amount of money needed. Mr. Troup even referred to a program that was only in place in Ontario. All the better if it suited the needs of fruit and vegetable growers in Ontario and if other provinces didn't necessarily have any need for it.

The government must be flexible and must understand that these programs have to provide some flexibility for users. There is no need for programs containing standards ill-suited to many growers.

[Bob Friesen]

We have talked to the agriculture minister about these issues several times. We had that opportunity. Part of the complication is now with the signing of the agricultural policy framework. They need seven provinces and at least 50% of the production to agree to the changes, and so the challenge is more than just getting to the federal government and having them agree. The challenge is making sure that provincial governments agree as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Does anyone else have a final comment? That's it?

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance.

Mr. Anderson, please.

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

I want to follow up on Mr. Troup's comments.

In terms of why the funding has not been extended, is the only reason you're getting that it doesn't “fit the mould”, as you said?