Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, you've known me going way back to the class of '93. It was thirteen years ago that we were elected. Some people in this room have been here longer than that, but we're not going to name names. Even though it's Halloween, we're not going to get into any of this.
It's good to be back here with the committee. I appreciate the committee's invitation to join you today. I also appreciate the work you've been doing on a day-to-day basis and the issues you've been covering. Sometimes, of course, we all get caught up in the shenanigans of the House, where we sometimes forget to give due credit to the important work done in committee. That's usually where the grunt work is done and where the effective and efficient work is done, and I want to thank you again for that work. Sometimes it doesn't make the headlines, but it's good work, and I appreciate that, as is the agricultural sector generally.
I know this hearing is officially on the department's fiscal estimates and supplementary estimates, plans, and priorities, so I'm going to divide my remarks into a couple of things. First, my introductory remarks will be on the measures the government has taken from a fiscal and policy perspective over the last nine months, and the second part will be on looking ahead to where we see things going.
We have accomplished quite a bit since January 23. We got out of the gate quickly with the acceleration of the cheques under the $755 million grains and oilseeds payments program, so that producers received virtually all of their payments in the first instalment. More than 120,000 producers have received a payment, and the vast majority of funds have now been delivered.
Under budget 2006, we are providing an additional $1.5 billion for the farm sector in the current fiscal year. This includes direct assistance to farmers and their families. We've used this in part to make changes in the CAIS inventory evaluation system and to improve negative margin coverage. This will result in an additional $950 million in program funding delivered, in order to facilitate the move to a new stabilization program.
Producers told us in no uncertain terms that the old inventory system didn't work and needed fixing, so we've done that. I'm pleased to report that cheques are now going out to producers under the CAIS inventory transition program in the provinces where Canada delivers CAIS. On average, we've been mailing out about 3,000 cheques per week since the first dated cheque of September 27.
We deliver these payments in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon. Where the provinces deliver the programs, Prince Edward Island and Alberta are doing a good job getting cheques out to producers, or are well on their way, and Ontario should start delivering late this fall. However, there is obviously a difference where the provinces deliver the programs
We are working with the Province of Quebec to determine the best method to deliver the funds. Quebec had already been using the improved inventory evaluation method and producers there have already benefited as a result, but Quebec will still get its share of this money.
The budget commitment also permitted us to implement a cover crop protection program to help farmers impacted by flooding in 2005-06. We initially allotted $50 million for this program. Now I'm seeking authority from cabinet and Treasury Board—we expect it soon—to raise this commitment to $90 million to address farmer's needs. Obviously the uptake on that program was larger than expected.
In June, we passed amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, or AMPA. I thank all members here for helping to move that through the House quickly and into the Senate quickly.
AMPA obviously oversees cash advance programs. As part of these amendments, we doubled the amount of interest-free cash available to $100,000, increased the overall advance to $400,000, and expanded the coverage of the loans to include livestock and other agricultural products. We anticipate that through the changes made to AMPA, an additional $600 million a year in cash advances will be made available to agricultural producers.
Because those amendments would not take effect immediately, we developed the enhanced spring credit advance program. That program doubled the interest-free portion for spring advances to $100,000, kept those loans interest free, and extended the repayment period until September 2007.
The regulations under AMPA are being amended to reflect the changes to the act. They are in their final stage of review and implementation, and we expect the launch of the new program early in the new year.
In July, we introduced a new pilot program aimed specifically at low-income farm families. The farm family options program involves a substantial federal commitment to help farm families most in need while they assist their farm business or develop the skills, knowledge, and tools they need to earn a better living either on or off the farm. As of last Friday, over 10,300 farm families have applied to this program. We can get into this in the questions and comments, but the average payout to those farm families is over $10,000.
Also, in support of producers and rural Canada, the government has announced its intention to require that motor vehicle fuel sold in this country contains an average of at least 5% renewable fuels, such is ethanol or biodiesel, by 2010. To ensure that rural communities have an opportunity to participate in and benefit from increased Canadian biofuels production, on July 1 we announced a federal investment of $10 million in the biofuels opportunities for producers initiative, to help individuals, groups, and communities wishing to develop cooperatives. As a way to take advantage of opportunities associated with biofuels and other value-added activities, the new government is also supporting biofuels opportunities through a one-time $1 million addition to the existing cooperative development initiative.
Biofuels have the potential to create jobs and stimulate economic growth in rural communities. No doubt co-operatives can be a powerful tool to focus on this goal.
So as you can see from these measures that I've highlighted, Mr. Chairman, Canada's new government continues to stand up for agriculture. Overall, by the end of the year, we expect that Canadian producers will receive over $5 billion in government payments, and more than $3 billion of that comes from the federal government.
Turning briefly to the CFIA portfolio, the spending for 2006 to deliver its programs and services in support of food safety and animal and plant health is increased to $662 million from $607 million in 2005-06. This represents a net increase of almost $55 million, due to new resources identified for several measures, including avian and pandemic influenza preparedness.
Canada continues to be recognized as having one of the most comprehensive food safety and animal and plant health systems in the world. With its team of highly trained and dedicated experts, the CFIA deals not only with emergencies, but is on the front lines day in and day out, protecting Canadians from preventable health risks and safeguarding our agricultural resource base.
Recent food-related issues have placed a spotlight on Canada's public health and food safety measures. The safety of Canadians is paramount to this government. For that reason I've asked the CFIA to review recent food-related issues to determine whether any enhancements are required for food safety and inspection systems. I'll obviously work with other cabinet colleagues to fix any problems that are identified.
The CFIA's commitment to excellence is also demonstrated in its efforts to address present and emerging challenges, such as as AI preparedness and response. As such, it has a team of specialists who have been working for months on this issue, in collaboration with the provinces and territories and with industry.
CFIA continues to pursue a science-based approach to address a range of plant-related threats across the country. Following the detection of golden nematode in Quebec this summer, CFIA officials worked diligently with their partners, and in just over six weeks Canada and the United States negotiated a framework agreement that responds to potato cyst nematode detections, and they re-established agricultural trade between the two countries.
The BSE issue has affected Canadian cattle producers since our first case in 2003. This year, the government announced steps that will help to eradicate BSE from our national herd on an accelerated basis, within the next ten years. Starting next July, the tissues that can transmit BSE—the SRMs—will be banned from all animal feed, pet foods, and fertilizers. These same tissues are already banned from the human food system.
In addition, the government has set aside $80 million to assist provinces, territories, and the industry to adjust to this regulation. In doing so, the government is accelerating our ability to put this issue behind our cattle industry once and for all.
Just briefly, I would like to touch on developments in international trade and the recent suspension of the WTO Doha Round. Of course, we're very disappointed at the impasse in the negotiations, and we're continuing to support any efforts to revive this process. While Canada and others can help to prepare the groundwork—for example, by encouraging cooperation to advance work on technical issues—fundamentally it is clear that we will need to see movement by the major players to make real progress possible. But when the WTO negotiations eventually resume, we will continue to aggressively advance Canadians' interests.
In present and future international trade negotiations, including regional and bilateral initiatives, we will continue to pursue an approach focusing on the genuine interests of Canada’s agricultural sector. In this regard, we will maintain our firm commitment to supply management and will seek increased market access for our exporters.
On other fronts, internationally we're continuing to help our ranchers and cattlemen fully restore trade with the U.S. and other markets. On September 13 I met with U.S. Secretary Johanns. We again talked about this issue. It's not the first time, of course, but he indicated that the second BSE rule will be published very soon, which would be welcome news and would reopen the border for older Canadian cattle and breeding stock.
On October 19 we welcomed the news that the Russian Federation has agreed to lift its ban on the import of Canadian breeding cattle. This was the result of a lot of hard work on the part of our officials, and it's a clear signal that our science-based arguments are making progress and helping to reopen those doors.
Where do we go from here?
On a couple of fronts I know there are going to be questions. I expect questions on the CAIS program. Concerning CAIS, we're absolutely committed to replacing it with separate disaster relief and income stabilization programs that are responsive, predictable, bankable, and transparent. That's what we promised and that's what we intend to deliver.
We're looking at more than simply replacing CAIS; we're looking at transforming the whole framework of the BRM programming. A new disaster relief program, a new margin-based program, and enhanced production insurance will represent a fundamental change to business risk management programming.
I mentioned changing the inventory evaluation system, and negative margins.
Also in response to producers' concerns, we got rid of the deposit system, we introduced disaster advances, and we reduced the paperwork, with less information required up front.
On production insurance, producers are looking for coverage of a wider basket of products, including livestock and horticultural crops, and they are looking for predictable, timely coverage for losses of specific commodities.
On disaster coverage, producers need a framework in place to allow governments to jointly respond to disasters, and not in the ad hoc fashion we've seen in the past.
With a better coordinated process, governments can take short-term measures to reduce the impact of disasters on producers. Thus, producers can resume their activities earlier after a disaster.
As you know, business risk programming is a shared federal-provincial-territorial responsibility. At our last meeting in June, I agreed with my colleagues in the provinces and territories to move towards separating disaster programming from income stabilization, and we agreed to a new and more responsive disaster assistance program that is separate from the income stabilization program. We also discussed enhancement to the production insurance program, and we will be meeting again on November 13 and 14 in Calgary, where we will be working toward an agreement on a framework for a new disaster relief program and a new margin-based program to replace CAIS. That's our goal, and that's what we've been working on over the summer and fall in collaboration with the provinces and territories, and with farm leadership.
Finally, our other important commitment is creating marketing choice for western wheat and barley producers. We campaigned on this and committed to marketing choice. There should be no surprises and no hidden agendas; we're pretty upfront about that in our literature and were in our campaign last January. We're moving forward in an orderly and transparent manner to create new opportunities for Canadian farmers.
Our vision for the Canadian Wheat Board is that of a strong voluntary, and profitable, Wheat Board, one that can offer farmers a viable, but not exclusive, marketing choice. There are some out there who would say, let's get rid of the Wheat Board, but I'm not one of them, nor is this government. We want to have a Wheat Board, but we want it to be in a marketing choice world. We see a bright future for a strong, viable, and voluntary Wheat Board for those who choose to use its services. Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers have a world-class product; they will now be given the opportunity to use their savvy market intelligence and initiative to maximize their returns. If they choose, they will still be able to sell through the Canadian Wheat Board. Even farmers who support marketing choice have said that the Canadian Wheat Board needs the opportunity to succeed in a commercial environment and to be a viable ongoing marketing option for producers. I see no reason why the board can't continue to function and be a strong force in the international grain market.
We have consulted and continue to consult with producers. The election on January 23 gave us a strong.... In fact, almost every seat in the farm region in western Canada elected members of our party. This promise to move toward a marketing choice environment was part of the campaign.
To help provide some direction on marketing choice, I announced last month a technical task force to recommend solutions to issues that may arise in implementing marketing choice. I was pleased to release the findings of the report yesterday. The task force recommended a four-stage transition, from a Canadian Wheat Board with monopoly powers to a marketing choice environment: preparing for that change, forming the new Canadian Wheat Board, launching the new Canadian Wheat Board with transition measures, and post-transition. I'm very appreciative of the work of the task force; they did a lot of hard work on a short timeline. I will be examining the report in detail and would like to consult on the ideas the task force has put forward.
Of course, we have been listening to farmers. I have been consulting with caucus and others in the industry. As part of that consultation, I am pleased to announce right now that a plebiscite on barley will be held in the new year. The government considers this plebiscite as forming part of the ongoing consultation with producers on this issue. The plebiscite will be on barley only; we think farmers are ready to make a decision on the barley issue. We will have a wide voter base, and the plebiscite will be founded on a clear question. This is in line with the provisions in the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which require that the voting process be determined by the minister.
I'm going to wait until the beginning of the plebiscite period before I announce the voters list. This will take us past the period when the elections of directors are taking place this fall, and at that time we'll announce the exact questions to be on the ballot. Until then, I welcome the input of farmers and this committee and others on what those should be.
I also want to engage in a more general consultation on the ideas from the task force, or others, on how a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board can be a viable player in a marketing choice environment.
Looking further down the road.... I don't know how much time I have left, Mr. Chairman, but I just have another couple of minutes here.
