Evidence of meeting #49 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 need.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We're going to start the next round. Maybe you can work it into the next round, if you can hang onto your response.
Mr. Gaudet.
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for coming. Since yesterday morning, I have been listening to you talking about your problems and your expectations with regard agriculture, namely drought, flooding, dumping, the new generation, imports, BSE, apples, cherries, corn, wheat, barley, potatoes, cattle, production insurance, supply management and risk management. However, you have never offered any concrete solutions to these problems.
Mr. Thompson indicated earlier that too many people work in the Department of Agriculture. If that department cannot suggest solutions, I would like you, who work out there, on dry land as we used to say at home in Quebec when I was young—my father, my grandparents and my great-grandfather were farmers—to give me only two solutions each in order to solve some problems. We will not solve them all but at least we could see some light at the end of the tunnel.
You never put forward solutions when you come to see us. You talk to us about your problems but I should like for you to suggest solutions. I would like each and everyone of you to give me their opinion.
11:25 a.m.
President, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers
Well, the solutions aren't easy. I'm sure you know that.
I think the problem is that the income is too low. We can talk about farm safety net programs and everything else. We have to get the income level up, because the good years are not good enough to make up for the poor years. That's really what it boils down to.
With the risk of being slugged here, as I mentioned earlier, we build an industry at the expense of another industry. I guess we have to face the reality that whatever the American farmers are doing, we are in direct competition with them, especially in the livestock industry.
I think a lot of people have their hopes laid on this opportunity in biofuels. I think if we can push that together and make a big portion of that farmer-owned—
I just heard that the German government decided that the wind power industry was going to be owned by farmers, and they made it happen.
We can just give lip service to this and say that farmers could own the biofuel industry. It doesn't matter whether it's environmentally friendly or not; it's going to happen, sooner or later. We have an opportunity in the next year or two to own that as producers. If we let that go by, it's going to hurt us.
At the same time, we need to be working with the livestock industry to make sure it doesn't kill their industry, because, quite frankly, barley needs to be $4 or $5 a bushel to be viable, and what are you going to do if it's there? So we've got a big problem right there.
11:25 a.m.
Director, Canadian Animal Health Coalition
I'd like to answer that question partially in relationship to the previous question. There are obviously many different problems, and there is not just one solution to every problem. But in terms of animal health, which is our focus today, we really believe that one of the solutions is to have a clearly defined national animal health and national farmed animal health strategy that would give us a way forward so that we are all working on the same page.
It was identified that we have provincial authority and federal authority, and we tend to be competing between industries and competing between governments to get to the same end point, and that's counterproductive.
One of the solutions I would suggest is that we need to move forward with a clearly defined strategy for animal health. At least in regard to our place in the international market community, from an animal health point of view, we're going to be much stronger and much more able to compete in a global marketplace.
11:30 a.m.
Chairman, Alberta Pork
To continue on with Bill's comments, and obviously with due respect, we had presented quite a number of solutions, and I certainly had mentioned the biogas solution.
I don't want to rain on the parade of the grain farmers here either in terms of bioenergy. That's okay. That policy is in place, and it's going to stay.
But I think when we're talking about the damage that is being done to livestock, we can take it a step further on the biogas side. I agree with Bill that we need to put it on a farm level, that the farmers should get the income.
There was the announcement of the huge plant in Innisfail. I don't think that's farmer-owned. That isn't where the money should be going. The solution is that we ensure that the ownership is there.
And let me present one other solution. It may be controversial. I don't know. I know here in this province we have eco taxes. I'm not sure if it's Canadian or Albertan. We pay a tire tax of $4 a tire. When we buy computers, we pay a tax.
I would propose that an eco tax on food might not be such a bad idea, a 1% tax on all food purchased in this country. That would go back for environmental improvement directly to the farmers, and it would not be scooped up in between somewhere. It would go back to environmental improvements, to food safety, to traceability, and those issues that our consumers expect and that we, as producers, pay for. We get no more for our products, and you keep expecting us to foot the bill. Our income keeps dropping, and we get paid less.
By putting an eco tax of, say, 1% on it, the process would be in place. It's simple to put into place. Funnel the money directly back to farmers. That's the solution.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming here today.
Mr. Steckle talked about how we've spun our wheels. It takes me back, Darcy, to a comment you made, and I think I heard you right, that you seem to be opposed to a NISA-like program.
We've had a supposedly national farm organization, which represents all sectors of agriculture, that has asked for a NISA-like—or at least a top-up kind of thing. To me, as a farmer and as a politician, it's one of the reasons, as Paul pointed out, why we've spun our wheels. I really think it's that way. I'm a big proponent of one voice for agriculture. I would think there'd be many more. We have every sector fighting each other. It's that old conquer and divide thing. I honestly believe that until we get together and put aside our differences and come out with one voice aimed at government, we're never really going to get rid of all that spinning. That's more of a comment.
Let's go back to the food tax, Mr. Preugschas, just for information. I had a recent mail-out--we call them householders--that went out to all the people in the riding. One question I had on there, and the results are just coming in, so they're very preliminary, was whether people would support a food tax specifically to fund agriculture. I didn't add in the eco part of it. I never thought of it, to be honest with you. But the results, initially, weren't as positive as I thought they would be. I honestly believed, with the importance people put on food, that it would have been fairly strong. But I'll wait until all the results are in.
Another thing I think we've spun our wheels on is truth in labelling the country of origin. I think that as a sector, the beef industry in Canada, which I'm part of, has fought this. Obviously, Mr. Preugschas, you're against that. I think it's going to happen, and rather than fighting it, we should make sure it's done in the right way.
Our food in Canada is second to no one's, unless maybe the Japanese, and I'm not even convinced of that. Europeans and Canadians are very close to the Japanese in how fussy we are as eaters. I think it's going to get better, and I think there are benefits there.
One other point you made and that I'd like to hear you comment on a little more is the acreage payment. If you grow your own feed for hogs or for any other livestock industry, you have a chance to get that. If you choose to buy it, you don't. I'm just pointing it out, more than anything. Are you really a farmer if you're purchasing all your feed? Of course you are, on one hand, but on the other, I think there generally has to be something where you should be producing some of your own costs.
I'll throw those out to hear some comments about them.
11:35 a.m.
Chairman, Alberta Pork
It's an interesting comment that you're not a farmer if you don't produce your own grain. That is a topic that I think would create some major discussion. Our industry, and certainly the beef feeding industry, has survived because of specialization and by doing a job on specialization. It's absolutely critical in some of these larger family operations that they specialize and purchase. Our grain farmers are our partners. They're our customers. Whether you raise your own or buy from someone else, I would hope that our representatives wouldn't take that to mean you're a farmer or you're not.
On your discussion on COOL and the value of our food and how good it is, I totally agree with you. I believe we can compete with anybody, but again, it's going to be another cost we have in marketing to the U.S. We have an integrated market on the hog side, as well as on the beef side, between the U.S. and Canada. To put barriers in there actually harms both sides. All they do is increase costs, and that's the issue.
On the food tax thing, I think you need to sell that properly if we're going to be successful. It's an eco tax. Don't ever call it a food tax. The food tax will not sell, and I wouldn't buy it, either.
11:35 a.m.
Matt Taylor Executive Director, Canadian Animal Health Coalition
In response to the comments from Mr. Miller, Mr. Steckle, and Mr. Gaudet, you're too right. Our industry is fractured, and it's very difficult to get everybody on the same page at the same time. That was part of what surprised us when we found, within very short order, that we had thirteen national-level organizations supporting a farmed animal health strategy and its recognition in the animal health policy framework, clearly, transparently, and with a clear recognition of who is responsible for policy development. We see these moments coming fleetingly, and we really welcome this committee's support in the clear recognition of that component within APF2.
11:35 a.m.
President, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers
I'm a proud member of the board of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the invitation is always open to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to be a member of that. The Canadian Pork Council is a member, and is always in some difficult discussions, because it is a very difficult time to have discussions or a group.
I wanted to make a comment on the talk about the NISA-like program. There's obviously disagreement on whether that's good or bad, but there was reasoning for that request. There was a lot of discussion on whether it's the way to go or not, but there is almost no predictability with the current program. There is some degree of predictability when you actually have some money in the bank. It also gives the government an opportunity to provide funding in years when it may not trigger, so that money can actually be banked up. It's actually a tool for the government to put some money away.
The problem with margin-based programs is that they work fine if you're in an industry that has sharp ups and downs. When you have some years of profit, they trigger very well. The CAIS program should work in the hog industry, for instance, because it's the nature of that business. In the grain business, especially once you have a five- or six-year period of low production or low grain prices and incomes, you pay for that for years and years. That's exactly what we've just come through. There are no reference margins to work with.
We're constantly looking for ways to improve it. We've had the National Safety Nets Advisory Committee, which I have sat on, and we have tried and tried for years. I'm not sure where that is going or if there is going to be some consultation, but as an industry we are very eager to work on trying to get a business risk management program that works and meets the needs of everyone at this table.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I know I am, Mr. Chairman, but could I ask for ten seconds for a clarification?
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I was going to give him ten seconds of my time if he wants it. Can I do that?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
If Mr. Atamanenko is going to be generous, Mr. Miller, you can go ahead.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I wasn't trying to say in any way that they weren't farmers. The complication is that money is paid out at some level on the acreage that you talked about, and I don't think the government should have to pay twice. There needs to be some diversity in there, and we can discuss that.