Agriculture Committee on April 16th, 2007

[Hans Buchler]

No, I would have to object to that. It is a social program, yes, but it is in the interest of the population at large, because really the issue in the long term is securing a food supply for the population. I really cannot overemphasize this. This will become more and more of an important issue as we go along.

And if I may just very briefly comment on the PMRA, we have tried to pressure the PMRA to harmonize the program with the United States and basically allow products that are allowed in the U.S. into Canada as well, without doing a whole lot of work on it. We have not been successful on this.

Even in the organic sector, there is a huge list of products available to organic farmers in the U.S. that are not available to us. And these are products.... I mean, if they are allowed in the organic sector, you would assume there should not be a huge concern in terms of food safety and environmental safety. Yet we have to go through registration on each and every individual product. This really has to change.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Atamanenko, seven minutes.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Thomson, you mentioned something to the effect that we should have effective trade remedy measures. As you know, the B.C. fruit growers have recently come out with a statement saying that they would like to have rapid response tariffs instituted in response to dumping of Washington State apples. You're familiar with that? Then I would like to get your comments and see if you agree with it, see if in fact you think it can work.

If anybody else would like to add some comments, please feel free to do so.

[Steve Thomson]

Thanks, Alex.

Not knowing all the specifics of how that would work, it's difficult to comment on it directly. But in terms of the principle, the point I was making, I think, is that we need to find the mechanism for a faster, more timely response in those situations where there is clearly evidence of product being dumped.

The current process--application through special import measures, CITT hearings, and so on--can be hugely costly. The damage is done by the time you go through the process and get a ruling or a response.

Whatever the process is, I think we would support, and generally the other sectors would support--we have the same issues in potatoes, we have the same issues in raspberries--the finding of a mechanism that provides for a much more timely and effective response than the one that currently exists.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I always use the example that in British Columbia we used to have over 2,000 onion producers. We now have maybe half a dozen as a result of NAFTA. We used to have seasonal tariffs that would protect our products--until we signed the agreement.

Should we be doing more? In addition to having this rapid response mechanism, should we be doing more to protect our local producers? And this ties in with food security, which we've touched on.

I'd like to get some comments on that, first of all from Steve, and then from anybody else.

[Steve Thomson]

No, I agree with you, we used to have seasonal tariffs and we used to have snap-back mechanisms in place. Those didn't always work effectively, either, as there were challenges in getting those implemented when needed.

Generally, going back to the points we were making, if we want to build a framework that has an element of food security and sovereignty in it, we need to find those kinds of mechanisms that protect industry under those circumstances until--and this is a big “until”--we get a process through trade agreements and things like that and we level the playing field so that we don't have to face the competition from heavily subsidized products in the U.S. and Europe and so on. That's been the goal for many years, but other governments, the U.S. and Europe particularly, find means to subsidize their producers based on domestic food security policy.

So until we can level that playing field, we need to have mechanisms that protect our industry under those circumstances.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Would anybody else like to comment?

[Hans Buchler]

Yes.

A seasonal tariff is certainly a tool that can work under certain circumstances. From my point of view, the ideal solution would be to convince the population at large to actually buy domestic products. If you can achieve that, you won't have a need for any other tool. If every consumer in Canada asked, before they bought, “Where is this product produced?”, that would solve the problem of the agriculture sector without any type of government interference.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Loewen, you mentioned we need to improve our worker programs, whether it's in the fruit industry, the horticulture industry, or the nursery industry. Right now it's difficult because you can't expect our producers to pay top wages. It's not realistic to expect to pay a “union” wage, because of the revenue. Obviously if there are not enough local people we have to import workers, and we have mechanisms and programs for that.

I've been thinking about this, and if we really want to encourage Canadians to work in our agriculture industry, should there be some kind of program of cooperation between private industry and government, whereby government might assist in paying the wages of young people specifically? If somebody wants to learn about the nursery industry, has finished university, but can't get by on $8 an hour, should there be some kind of cooperation or program? Then this person could make a decent wage and gain experience, you could hire locally, we would move on, and everybody would benefit.

[Tim Loewen]

That would definitely help build our skilled labour eventually. There are a few programs like that, and support for more internship-type programs would be very good. It would be well received by our industry in particular. The flip side is there just aren't enough people. Even if we get all of them to commit to programs like that and enter the workforce, we are still going to be short 350,000 workers by 2012.

So that is a good idea and those are good programs. More support for internship programs is very important to us. It builds our semi-skilled and skilled workforce. Those are our foremen, owners, and leaders of our industry in the future. But we still need more people to do the work than what's available, so we're going to need access to other workers.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like a quick comment from Ernie on biofuels and the cattle industry.

[Ernie Willis]

It will be a huge challenge. It's going to be a question of where the federal government subsidies go, how much they are willing to subsidize biofuels, and how we can use the feed that comes from the biofuels in our feedlots. Then the challenge will be to locate feedlots close to where these ethanol plants are. It could change the complex and the whole sector of agriculture, especially the feeding sector.

We have an ad hoc committee trying to get the ramifications of biofuels. There are no easy solutions.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

We'll begin five-minute rounds with Mr. Steckle.

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

Thank you very much.

The reason for this meeting is to look at what the new agriculture policy framework is going to look like. As one who has been around this table many times, let me preface my comments by asking you a few questions, but giving you some thoughts about where I see this going.

Can we truly have an agriculture policy if we don't have one that clearly states that food security is of national importance? If we don't make that statement and don't have that commitment, how can we have a food policy and a policy that basically supports farmers? Can we have 10 different governments, along with the federal government, ever agree to put a program in place that's going to support the kinds of concerns you have?

If you can find answers to that, we'd be interested in dealing with them. I firmly believe that the time has come for us to move to the national government only supporting agriculture, where we have one ox to gore—not 11, 13, or 14—and that's something we need to consider.

Hedy, you mentioned that there are some products causing us a problem in exporting to the United States. I'd like you to name at least one, so that we have something on the record--something that is inhibiting our exporting perhaps fruit to the United States, or vegetables, or whatever it might be, something that is inhibiting because of the PMRA.

I want to finish my questions.

In Ontario and Quebec, the farmers and the various organizations got together and put together a formula for business risk management whereby farmers and government put money into a pot, and they chose a payout level they were comfortable with. Would that kind of disaster program be something you could endorse or support?

And should we have at the end of every fiscal year a timely audit that allows the farming community to understand, of the $1.5 billion the government promised last year, how much of the money was paid out or whether we are reintroducing some of that $1.5 billion in the $1 billion that was announced in the recent budget? We don't know, because money is to be paid out for the 2003-04 year and 2004-05 year that hasn't been paid out yet.

That's money that was back there. How much money is being paid out at a current level? Money is recycled, re-announced, and everybody feels good about it, and we applaud governments for doing it, but really, what has been paid out? I'd like to know that, as a farmer myself, as a committee member, and as a member representing a constituency, as we all are around this table. What truly are the numbers?

Those are some of the things I have on my platter. It's maybe at a different level from what you expected, but I think it's something we need to talk about.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'd ask everybody to keep their responses short.

There are a couple of questions there. Who wants to go first?

[Tim Loewen]

I thintk, first of all, that one level of government would be great, if we only had to deal once with an issue, rather than four or five or twelve times. Also, more transparency with the payouts would be excellent as well. It would be nice to know if it was actually paid out after it was announced, and how it was used.

[Hedy Dyck]

With regard to the PMRA issue, there are instances of specific pesticides that we cannot get.

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

We're producing product that is chemicalized with a product that the Americans will not accept, and therefore we can't ship the apple, as an instance, to the United States.

[Hedy Dyck]

In our case, it's nursery stock.

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

Oh, it's nursery stock?

[Hedy Dyck]

Yes.

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

I don't care what it is, if we could have it on the record so that it would be something we could take back in our next meeting with PMRA.

Would you do that? Could you make sure it's presented before you leave?

[Hedy Dyck]

Yes.

[A voice]

Or send it in.