Agriculture Committee on March 27th, 2007

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

I think to some degree we've recognized the differences in the area, because we've recognized the ASRA program in Quebec as uniquely different from other provinces. So we've treated Quebec--not in terms of dollars; the dollars were handled differently in Quebec than in other provinces, but the dollars were the same. So I think we have already recognized that.

To me, there has to come a point where we say, listen, we're going to sit down and work this thing out, and we're going to come together--grains and oilseeds, the various commodities across this country, from province to province to province. I think we have to do that and say, listen, we stand together and this is what we want. Then the government needs to make that commitment, that we will stand with our food industry in this country, the primary producers, and say, we'll support you, whatever that is. We'll find a way to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Ravelli, a quick response.

[Ross Ravelli]

I think we should agree to have the consultation. I think the first step is to find out what common things we have and move those things. We have some very big issues, whether it's the transportation regulations that we could move on with speed, smart regulations. We should do that and engage in a bigger conversation.

I'm not saying we'll ever agree on X, Y, and Z, but if we can get A, B, and C done, our industry will be much better for it. Whatever that avenue is, I'm not sure, but we're surely committed to having that discussion, and this is a good part of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bellavance.

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

Thank you for your presentation, gentlemen. My first question is to the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition. After the budget, you issued a press release stating that you were happy to see that the government had finally met the agricultural sector's demand to change the CAIS, the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, by instituting a contributory accounts type of component.

However, in the same news release, you also say that the budget had unfortunately not provided any funding for companion programs that you feel are necessary for the successful operation of provincial agricultural programs. In Quebec, a companion program would provide financial support for FISI, the Farm Income Stabilization Insurance Program. In order to properly understand the usefulness of the companion program, I would say that one of its very important objectives is to counter the prolonged drop in the margins that is caused by the huge American subsidies. Would you please explain how this program works and what type of distribution you would favour? How can we provide a fair and sufficient distribution in these programs so that we might counter sustained decreases in the margins?

[William Van Tassel]

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance. The method will take into account the fact that it is a Canadian program. With respect to the calculation, for grains, Agriculture Canada has already undertaken a study to assess the losses due to American subsidies. The study was done in 2000, and the losses were said to be $1.2 billion. It is probably higher now. It is relatively easy to know what amount would apply to Canadian grain. The calculation was based on the damage caused to each type of crop. Sometimes, the result is different. There is a way to go about determining these figures.

Why do we need a flexible companion program? The needs are different throughout Canada. Quebec and Ontario farmers live very close to the American border. Our products are similar to the ones that are subsidized by the Americans, so we are strongly affected by the corn, soy and wheat subsidies. That is why we are trying to find some way to solve our problem by emphasizing the areas where the problem really exists in order to save the government as much money as possible. With our program, producers must invest a certain amount of money. When they pay a premium, they become more accountable.

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

The problem that we see—and that is one of the priorities that you raised in your presentation—involves flexibility, as you just mentioned: regional flexibility, flexibility within each sector. When we ask the Minister of Agriculture for that type of flexibility, we are always told that it can't be done. In fact, the last time I mentioned it to him, he said that there were programs, but that they could not be defined according to a sector or a segment of the industry. He said that special funds had been used, for example, the one that they announced following the discovery of the golden nematode problem in Saint-Amable. Do you think that this is an acceptable response? Do you think that this type of fund can make up for the fact that we cannot have flexible programs, according to the minister?

[William Van Tassel]

In the opinion of the Quebec and Ontario grain producers, when special funds are allocated but without any specific details, there seems to be a lot of money available, but the results are far from satisfactory. If demand continues, then it means that there is a problem. That is why we feel, as I said earlier, that there must be more money made available for the costs. I agree that there appears to be enough money allocated for the time being, but when it is spread too thin, it does not produce the desired effect.

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

What can we tell the minister in order to convince him that the flexible programs are perfectly adequate?

[William Van Tassel]

This is the third time that I have come before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. That's because I think we need to continue to promote our message.

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

I would like to discuss a topic that you raised a little later in your presentation. You said that a regional vocation can avoid the necessity of WTO recourses. I would like you to expand on that. We know that the CAIS program as currently configured avoids those problems but I would like you to provide me with some further details.

[William Van Tassel]

Obviously CAIS normally falls under the green box. I'll tell you more about the FISI because this is a program that is used in Quebec. Given that this is a provincial program, not a national program, it is examined less frequently. It does not deal with grain exports. The Americans did examine it at one point but they did not find a reason to request countervailing duties. They examined it a few times but I assume they never found any grounds to continue because it is a provincial program.

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

Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Monsieur Gourde, sept minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Van Tassel a question. Do regional programs refer to a whole province or to several parts of one province?

[William Van Tassel]

Normally regional programs refer to a province. That is how we view it.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Fine. Therefore, in Canada there could be 10 different regional programs.

[William Van Tassel]

Yes. That is our position. We spoke of other provinces. Quebec is looking at this. Ontario has the RMP, the Risk Management Program and the west may have something else. The idea is to find the best method for their agricultural sector.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

My next question is for all of you. Is there consensus between the provinces on these regional programs? Are the programs similar or will each province have to negotiate its own regional program with the federal government?

[Ross Ravelli]

I guess I have a little problem with getting too flexible in our programs, because I think this is a national government. A national government has to set, like a foundation, the basic walls that everybody gets. To make the house stand and be even, it has to be equal. My concern is that the issue of flexibility will make one wall higher than the other.

As the Grain Growers of Canada, the concern we have when we discuss it is that it will allow provinces that wish to put more in to take federal dollars to make the wall higher. We want to make sure the federal government makes the wall level, and we have some concerns.

Every province is a little different, and some have money. Alberta has money, and they have shown a willingness to put money into programs. Coming from B.C., I can say we do not have that willingness. What we get from you is what we're going to get.

[Barry Reisner]

On the other side of Alberta, we have the same concerns, and we have had for a number of years.

I don't think it makes us better as a country, I think it makes us worse. If agriculture is a national mandate, then I would prefer to see the programs national. It tends to keep the barriers and the boundaries at our borders with other countries rather than within. We need fewer obstacles within our country. We should be tearing down some of the ones we have now, not putting up more.

[Arden Schneckenburger]

I believe it should be a national type of program, with moneys available to the different parts of the country that have different crops, different commodities, different sectors. As stated earlier in the presentation, there are over 200 different crops, but only certain ones in certain areas in each province may be in trouble or something.

So as long as there's a program available for all provinces to address and use, a national program with regional flexibility to implement, then I think that would be key.

[Peter Tuinema]

We have national programs now, CAIS and production insurance, and a whole lot of ad hoc programs to address some of the shortcomings of those programs. To me, if a national program is not necessarily working, you need something. And you already have some provinces, whether they have money or not, designing regional solutions. So I don't necessarily think that national programs that are similar are ever going to address some of the needs.

Are the provinces going to be able to agree on this? At the producer level they'd probably be able to figure out what's needed in a province and try to address that. As for whether the provinces are willing to step up and fund their share, that's probably a challenge in some provinces.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

What are the points that the provinces have in common and that could be used as solid foundations for these regional programs? Surely the provinces deal with similar situations. Obviously there are differences amongst the provinces but which points could be used as a basis for these regional programs? We could perhaps then find solutions to the provinces' differences.