Yes, or send it in, or....
Evidence of meeting #47 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
Evidence of meeting #47 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You made the comment earlier in your presentation that there are some products that the PMRA has approved in Canada that aren't available in the U.S., which aren't as effective and are more toxic, you said.
9:50 a.m.
Contract Industry Coordinator, Nursery Industry Development, B.C. Landscape & Nursery Association
No, the issue with us is that there are pesticides that have been approved in the U.S. that we cannot get in Canada, even though they are safer and more effective.
9:50 a.m.
Contract Industry Coordinator, Nursery Industry Development, B.C. Landscape & Nursery Association
It was Hans Buchler who used the reciprocal.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
I apologize. If someone did, please leave it on the table before you leave.
9:50 a.m.
British Columbia Cattlemen's Association
Speaking to the question of having agriculture as just a federal issue and not a provincial issue, Canada is such a diverse country, and Ottawa is a long way away. I'm sure you appreciate this after you've flown out here. It's hard to get a view across to Ottawa sometimes as to what the B.C. issues are, and it's probably no different at the other end of the country. It's easy to go to Victoria and easy to talk to your agriculture minister; you see him. The closer they are to home, the easier it is for you to talk to them and convince them of what the issues are.
Having an agriculture minister and not having a provincial minister of agriculture would make it very challenging to get our points of view across. As a cattlemen's association, we have a strong national organization and a strong voice, which would help, but there are other organizations out there that don't have a strong national voice and would be very challenged by having just a national minister of agriculture.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Agriculture Council
Very quickly, I certainly agree with your comments around a food security policy. I think that has to be the starting point on which the whole framework hangs.
In terms of federal-provincial, just as Ernie mentioned, I think that will be a challenge. The framework has to be a federal-provincial agreement along with industry, because if you're going to have a food security policy, it has to be endorsed by the federal government and the provinces.
In terms of risk management programming, I think what you're talking about is the self-directed risk management approach. We would certainly support that direction. When I look at all the dollars that are spent in all the different programs and things, I sometimes think that we could be a lot more effective if we had a much more self-managed account for the producer--put the dollars in and let the producer decide how he wants to access those funds and use them. Sometimes your best risk management is some capital investment or infrastructure on your farm, and you should be able to use the account for those types of things. If it's a disaster--market return, income drop, all of those kinds of things--if you had a much more self-directed approach, I think it's something that should continue to be looked at.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay, thank you, Mr. Steckle. Sorry, we're out of time on that round.
We're going to go to Mr. Harris. This is the last five-minute round for this morning session.
April 16th, 2007 / 9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, presenters. I enjoyed your presentations. I have only five minutes, so I'm going to try to put it between Mr. Loewen, Ms. Dyck, and Mr. Willis.
I was interested in something you had said earlier, Mr. Loewen, that in essence nursery plants that are being imported from the U.S. are using pest control products that CFIA won't allow Canadian nurseries to use.
9:55 a.m.
Growers Chair, B.C. Landscape & Nursery Association
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
They won't allow Canadian nurseries to use them, even though your organization has argued that with respect to a lot of these products most of them are safer and better than the ones we're permitted to use Canada. I find it disturbing that we'd allow nursery products to come in that have been using these products as pest control products, but we're not allowed to use them here.
You also said, and this is interesting, that because you can't use them here in Canada, when you're shipping south of the border, there's a good chance you could run into problems from the U.S. government because you're not allowed to use the products they've deemed as safer and better than the products you're using.
Do you have a short response to that? I think it's a dilemma.
9:55 a.m.
Growers Chair, B.C. Landscape & Nursery Association
You're right--that's my short response. Yes, that is the dilemma. You're right. Beyond that, I don't know what to say.
We need quicker response from PMRA. A lot of chemical companies don't want to invest the dollars because Canada's too small a market. They'll do it for grain because that's pretty big, but they won't do it for ornamental horticulture or whatever.
As an example, in Oregon the nursery industry is the number one industry. It's above forestry and above tourism in Oregon. So Dow or Monsanto or any of those guys will invest the money to get those chemicals into the U.S. market because it's a big market. They won't put that money into the research for Canada, so it just won't happen. We won't get the chemical because the tests won't be done.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Okay.
Ernie, it's good to see you again. You made some comments regarding the CAIS program and the pending disaster fund.
Coming from the Cariboo central interior, I'm hearing what you're saying. I've yet to run into a cattle producer up there, for example, who's really figured out how to use that CAIS program in any way to their benefit. They've said, and I repeat some of your words, “It is very convoluted; it's an accounting nightmare.” For most of them, it's simply unacceptable.
When the Liberals brought it in, in 2003, they weren't able to fix it. We're on our way, I think--and I'm not on the agriculture committee as a regular member, so I'm counting on my colleagues--in replacing it with something that will work. Hopefully we'll change the name to get that bitter taste out of the cattle producers' mouths when they say it.
Also, I had it described the other day as “something the Liberals brought in to try to drive the family farms out of the business so that the big corporations could take over”. That is maybe a strong statement, but nevertheless.... Now, that came from a cattle producer, not from one of my colleagues, I have to assure you.
Anyway, could you just give a brief response to that overall thought?
10 a.m.
British Columbia Cattlemen's Association
Just to comment on the CAIS program, to be fair, the CAIS program for the cattle industry came in in 2003 and we had BSE. There were some problems and they were exacerbated. The border closed. We were in the middle of a disaster and we were trying to make a program fit something it wasn't designed to fit. That was basically what happened. To be fair with the past government, I don't know if any government, if we didn't have a national disaster program in place, would have had a program that would have fit what happened that time.
In 2003, when BSE hit and the borders closed—and we're totally dependent upon exports—we had a disaster. We had to rely on ad hoc programs. It's a challenge when you design ad hoc programs. You always miss things that should have been looked at, and there is always the ramification of that ripple effect, of what else does it cover. We had some challenges.
That's why I go back to that national disaster program. If we had one, and had the criteria and had the rules laid out, if some circumstances such as border closure or weather-related fit the criteria, then you'd know it would step in. That would save us all a challenge in the future. Instead of trying to develop ad hoc programs to react, we should already have been proactive and have looked at it and have the answers. That's where the CAIS program was never designed for cases such as what happened in 2003.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
There seems to be the call from the industry for a stand-alone disaster fund to look after emergencies.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You were just getting warmed up.
Anyway, I want to thank all of you for coming in today to make your presentations. It was definitely worth while. If there were any questions that you felt you didn't get a chance to answer, you're more than welcome to submit those in writing to the clerk and they will be circulated out to the committee members.
Again, thanks for your time.
We will suspend briefly to allow the witnesses to clear away from the table. Grab a cup of coffee and we will return in about two minutes.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We'll call this meeting back to order.
I welcome to the table Ross Ravelli, of the B.C. Grain Producers Association; Linda Allison, from the Southern Interior Stockmen's Association; and Joe Sardinha and Glen Lucas, from the B.C. Fruit Growers Association.
I'd like to welcome you all to the table to make your presentations. We are asking that you keep your presentations to ten minutes. We are talking about everything in the agricultural policy framework, including business risk management, environment, food safety, and the whole gamut.
With that, I'll turn it over to you, Ross.
