Agriculture Committee on April 18th, 2007

[Kenton Possberg]

That is the way we need to go, 100%, because when there is a localized problem, like the drought in 2002—that really impacted Saskatchewan, and basically it bankrupted crop insurance. If you could spread that risk out—Some 40% or 50% of the arable crop land is in Saskatchewan, and that really hurt things. There wasn't a good program to begin with, and it's been pared down ever since.

My contention is always that I don't feel there is a price problem in agriculture because I can control price. I can do futures, I can do whatever I need. I can always try to extract a higher, better price, but the weather? There is nothing I can do to control weather.

Let's say General Motors is making cars and all of a sudden it hailed and 50% of their cars got destroyed. That just doesn't happen.

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

Yes.

Mr. Treleaven.

[John Treleaven]

The issue of interprovincial trade barriers is enormous in this country. Whether the answer is 12 government departments—I'm not sure that is the answer. You'll know better than I the estimate of what it costs every Canadian family in their standard of living to maintain all these jurisdictions. And one of the industries that is most compromised by this is agriculture, dealing from a national base, where you have to stack a load of hay differently in Manitoba than you do in Saskatchewan. The hidden cost is phenomenal, and it goes straight to the bottom line of the producer, who has to pay all of that.

I'm not saying that one department of agriculture is the answer, but I'll tell you this. What B.C. and Alberta did on April 1—I live for the day when other provinces take the logical decision to say let's join them, because nationally it's a really big issue for all the farm producers in this country and anybody else doing business. We are the only major trading nation in the world that expects our companies to compete globally but routinely denies them elements of the domestic market. No one else does that. We do it as a matter of course, and in agriculture it's particularly serious.

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

This industry can move forward. I believe there are solutions, if we're ready to accept them. I just can't understand why we can't quickly move in those directions.

I think this morning you have laid out for us some very interesting issues. For instance, in Ontario, and I have made this argument many times—this goes to the cervid industry particularly—we harvest 8,000 bears in a year legally. A particular gall bladder is owned by the hunter who bags that particular bear. We do not allow that gall bladder into the marketplace, but we allow poachers—we don't allow, but it happens—into the marketplace, and they supply that market at very high prices.

We could reduce the need for poaching if we allowed those marketable items into the marketplace. They were legally harvested. They're just as legal, just as clean as anything else we do, and yet we don't allow it. We could see real value returned back to the sport—not necessarily to the harvester, but to the sport. I can't get anywhere on that, either.

There are some very commonsense solutions to some of our problems, just as there are to your issue, I believe. I totally support it and am pleased to hear that there's at least some feeling of direction in where we go on this provincial-federal thing. I think we need as quickly as possible to move towards one department of agriculture in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

I want to ask a question to Mr. Possberg. You were talking about crop insurance and the problems. What do you think the participation level is right now in Saskatchewan in the crop insurance program?

[Kenton Possberg]

Honestly, I have no idea. I know it has declined.

The main reason producers are in crop insurance right now, probably—anecdotally—would be for the cash advance program. Beyond that—?

It may be at the 50% level. I don't think it is a very high participation level.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

And as we're moving towards broadening the base of crop insurance, or calling it “production insurance” now, there's been a push from the federal government, because the federal government is a partner in all the provincial crop insurance programs. They're paying part of the premiums, and under the agreed-upon formula, they're sharing the cost of the program with the provinces as well.

Has there been any consultation in the province of Saskatchewan on how they move forward with production insurance? I look at forage seed. Has there been any consultation with the province on that? Can you insure weed-cutter bees now?

[Wayne Goerzen]

As far as production insurance goes, forage seed is an interesting example. If you look at the three prairie provinces—at alfalfa seed production, for instance—in Alberta there is pedigreed alfalfa seed production; in Saskatchewan only common alfalfa seed production is insurable. In Alberta all forage seeds are under crop insurance programs; in Manitoba all forage seeds are under crop insurance programs; in Saskatchewan only alfalfa seed is under the crop insurance program.

When you get within those programs—we've been looking at this as an organization—the Alberta and Manitoba programs are quite lucrative compared with the Saskatchewan program. When our producers in Saskatchewan find out about the structure of the programs in Alberta and Manitoba, without fail their mouths drop open at how rich those programs are. Ours does not cover the cost of production.

In some ways, it's a question of the Saskatchewan treasury competing with the Alberta and Manitoba treasuries. It goes back to what the other member was discussing, that some provinces can afford better programs than others. This is something we're looking at, but I don't have any real answers, other than trying to get more standardization.

It's ironic that producers producing the same crop on either side of the Alberta-Saskatchewan border have radically different programs to deal with in terms of risk management.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You mentioned that on the GOPP payment, forage seeds are—and I heard from my forage-seed producers that they were—excluded from the program. When you discussed this with department officials, or when you had correspondence with the minister, what was the response you received?

[Wayne Goerzen]

We're in ongoing consultation with crop insurance, but in our particular case, probably only 50% to 60% of our alfalfa seed acres are within crop insurance. In our particular sector, our producers don't necessarily subscribe to crop insurance, because it costs a lot and doesn't pay out a whole lot. In some ways crop insurance is reluctant, then, to work with us on expanding programs.

One thing we pushed for for about six years is a pedigreed seed option, which is common within any other crop types. That's something we haven't been able to get, to this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Holland, one comment has been made that was fairly strong, that the cattle industry is against the elk industry. I'm a cattle producer, and that strikes me as being a fairly strong statement, because I've never heard any cattle producer actually ever say that. I remember when I was involved with the provincial association fighting for recognition in Manitoba of the game farming industry and moving that into a commercial basis. So I just wonder, have you had any recent conversations with the cattlemen's association, provincially or nationally, and trying to work together, since you guys are facing a lot of the same issues?

The Korean market is shut down to both beef and elk. We're talking about a free trade agreement with Korea, and I've heard from cattlemen that they want to make sure this is an opportunity to resolve the Korean market access issue.

You both are facing disease problems, BSE and CWD. Actually, I just read in the paper this morning, The Western Producer, that they're looking at using elk as the basis of a study right now, infecting them with CWD to try to figure out how this disease is working and how that will relate to other prion diseases such as BSE. So I'm wondering what your conversations have been like.

[Roger Holland]

There haven't been a lot of conversations with the cattlemen's association, just at the round-table talks where they supported our industry.

The main thing was that they looked at their situation. They run cattle herds. They own cattle herds, and they provide for them. They came out and said our situation was exactly the same as theirs. They're a different animal, but the ownership is there. You run them the same way. And that's what they recognized, that we should be under agriculture.

I think it was Paul who stated that he's heard that these people don't like it, and he wondered about that. They're everywhere. There are probably some people in the cattle industry who do not like our industry, and there are probably some people in government. We know they're all over. But my point of view is that it's just like anything else: if you don't like somebody else's profession, you don't go into it. It's a pretty broad statement, but you're going to find those activist people everywhere.

There are people who don't like them, guys raising cattle too. That's what I refer to. We have that in every sector—the hog industry, you name it—that we shouldn't be raising the animals for human consumption.

That's my say.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, I appreciate that clarification.

Richard.

[Richard Mardell]

I think the cattle industry was scared, right off the bat. When CWD struck one of our elk farms, they eradicated the farm, and the fellow went in and put cattle on his pasture. Right away, the cattle industry said, “Get them off there. We don't want any disease to transfer into the cattle industry that would hamper our industry.” So CFIA went in there and eradicated all those cattle that were put on that land. He wanted to put in buffalo, and they said no. So this farm sat for I don't know how many years—Roger might know more—without anything on it.

Now we have CWD in the wild, in the deer population. They're testing herds all over, which are on cattle ranches and all over the place, but it's an accepted thing now. The cattlemen aren't going to say, “Well, we have a deer in this area, so we're going to take all our cattle out of this pasture, because it has CWD.”

It has been proven by science—and it's one thing that's good—that it doesn't transfer to cattle and it doesn't transfer to humans. It's just that they don't have a live test for it, but if they come up with one—

I don't want to talk too long here.

My herd was due for testing, and they assured me.... They were taking blood tests. We had a person from the States come up to one of our meetings and say that they were doing DNA testing on the animals and that it was one bloodline or DNA marker in our elk that was very susceptible to CWD.

So I asked the CFIA, when they did the blood test here just a week ago at my place, to run the DNA on it and see if I had any of these bloodlines. I haven't had CWD. But they were eradicating another herd, so I said to go in and see if the ones they've tested or killed have that bloodline. Maybe all we have to do is come out to the elk farms and do a simple blood test, eradicate that one bloodline or DNA marker, and it will get cleaned up. But they haven't even done that process.

Now, until you say they're looking at doing some more live tests and trying to help our industry.... We are probably ruffling a lot of feathers in the federal government, asking what they are going to do to help our industry. That is, I think, the big reason that CFIA is out there, because we've been probably ruffling a lot of feathers on the higher guys, on their bosses, to get them to do something for us.

Hopefully, we can get a live test. That would be great for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are we close to a live test?

[Richard Mardell]

The Americans say that this marker carries CWD, and if you eradicate it from your herd, you're not going to get it.

We approached CFIA about six years ago, and they said there hasn't been any research on this in Canada. When they did all the killings and eradicated the herds, they never followed up on the DNA side. Now they're starting to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It seems that the more places we go, the more complicated this whole business becomes. When I listen to the CWD—and I know we have talked about this in committee before—we are a country. I know that in Saskatchewan, you're saying that your herds are in good health. But we have game herds all across the country, whether in B.C., eastern Canada, or Nova Scotia.

With BSE, we all suffered as agriculturalists because of problems in Alberta. When you export beef from this country, it is Canadian beef. It's not Quebec or Ontario beef, it's Canadian. To a farmer in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, there's probably a great amount of frustration about paying the price for what happened in Alberta. This is a problem.

Regarding the second business, on crop insurance, I hear your arguments and know that we can probably make some suggestions. But in my province of New Brunswick, for example, in the vegetable areas, we have certain crops that are insured and other crops that cannot be insured. If you're growing broccoli, cauliflower, or whatever, you can't be on an equal playing field with somebody who's growing potatoes, for example. So it's quite a significant problem there.

When I look at our federal government programs—and the provinces are involved in these—it's very difficult. I've asked this question before: should there be certain areas that only the federal Department of Agriculture is involved with, and other areas that should provincial?

We've heard about disaster relief regarding major problems in certain sectors or regions. We've talked about crop insurance, research, or as John said, the relationship with infrastructure, perhaps as national programs. But is our federal money spread too thin? Are we involved in too complicated a business federally, where there are too many people in the agricultural sector sending you letters and asking you to respond to so many different ventures?

Also, Ken, I have to ask about crop insurance, because when you think of insurance, you think of a program that should be fairly neutral. In other words, when you put money into the program, somebody somewhere else is going to take money out. It would balance out over a period of time. With our present program on insurance, three different groups participate.

You gave us an example of a farm in Saskatchewan that has drawn out for four successive years. If you had a house that burned for four years in a row, would it be insurance? Or are we looking at a program to help farmers who have trouble producing what somebody thinks they could or should produce? How would an insurance program work with a car, if you had an accident every month or at least once a year? How do governments continue to participate in programs that would want a payout? How far back would we have to go with this farm to get a level playing field? Over a long period of time, insurance should be insurance.

I don't mean to put you on the spot; maybe it's your own farm. But do you ever expect to be able to meet the levels you want to insure for? Could you do that three years in a row? Maybe after you answer, others could do so.

John, I'm really interested in your programs, and I know that's where we have to go.

I have only a few minutes left, Mr. Chair, but perhaps an answer from Kenton, and maybe John, and from others would want to reply.

[Kenton Possberg]

As far as my farm, where we're situated, it's unprecedented— these events just bang, bang, bang. It's not only us; it's all the farms in our area. There isn't anything we can do; it's completely uncontrollable. The crops that are grown are the norms for the area. We are hampered because we can't diversity into new crops, because we don't have the risk management in place for coverage.

I grew sunflowers here, but the protection coverage was so low that when something happened, there was no protection in place. When you get into a new crop—if you haven't grown canola and get into it now—there is no protection in place, because you haven't built your history.

Our farm is 25% above area average yield, so we are at a higher productivity level than area averages.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

So the government program more or less would be forever. Or do you expect sometime that you're going to meet what you think it should be in terms of your insurable limits?

[Kenton Possberg]

I never want to collect on my house insurance. I buy it so that I have the protection. I never want to collect on crop insurance, and I never want to collect on CAIS. But I want it to be in place for when I do collect.

It has been unprecedented these last number of years. Before 2002 we never had a claim in crop insurance for our farm, dating back to its infancy. It just never happened. It just happened when it did happen...and it's not in place.

You'll find other operations where, if they haven't had uncontrollable weather-related events, if they haven't had a claim on crop insurance, even their CAIS, their whole financial outlook is a lot different because of what's happened.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Does anyone want to reply to the idea that we have too much government involvement in too many places? Would it be better to have some differentiation in terms of what each government should do, or could do, to assist agriculture?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Anybody?

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Is CAIS too complicated, the whole negotiations? Are you satisfied with what's happening now with the program?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Treleaven.