Agriculture Committee on April 19th, 2007

[Keith Kuhl]

Thank you for the question.

It's very difficult to come up with a model without first of all sitting down together with government to dialogue. At this point, what our request has been is to initiate the dialogue between producers and government.

Part of the problem, as you certainly saw in the Saint-Amable area in Quebec during this past summer, is that the discovery of nematodes on the farm can cause huge devastation. The devastation is not only on that specific farm, it's also much broader than that. The devastation is provincial. It's not only commodity-specific, not only on the potato crop, it's also on any crop that would be transported with soil, typically, such as nursery product.

The production of potatoes on the farms that were found positive for nematodes is, in our opinion, finished. Those farms will no longer be producing potatoes. The investment that these farms have placed into equipment, storage, washing and packing facilities, transportation facilities, and land is all at risk. From a financial aspect, the ability for those farms to continue, to be able to go to the bank and find alternate ways to use their land, is extremely scary at this point.

We don't have a total concept, but because it's a quarantinable pest, similar to BSE or avian flu, we feel there needs to be an agreement in place to ensure that we can continue to work towards the eradication of the pest. At the same time, we are in dialogue with our counterparts. The National Potato Council in the U.S. is currently in harmony with the Canadian industry and working with their government to try to get a similar compensation package within the U.S.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, but you did not give me a model of compensation. Producers who had the misfortune to find out that their potato crop was affected by this sickness or infestation need help to start a new production because they had invested everything they had in the lost crop. I thought you would be able to suggest a solution. Talks are presently ongoing with the government and we have no solution. I am like other members here. We are being presented with a shopping list but actually there is no answer. I would like you to suggest a couple of solutions to help producers of corn, pulse, canola or whatever. I would like to have answers for each crop. You are presenting us with a shopping list and the government has to choose in this list a solution to help farmers produce a crop, rather than the farmers themselves deciding on what to produce. Government can help in some cases, but I want to have your opinion on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Kuhl.

[Keith Kuhl]

Again, we're certainly very open to dialogue and to working together with the government to try to find the solutions. There are solutions under the Health of Animals Act for cases of BSE, avian flu, etc., that we can probably utilize and model against. But as an industry, the find this summer in Quebec is certainly what has initiated the current discussion with the government on compensation for plant health. We do not have a model in place at this point. We have requested to initiate discussions with government to allow us to jointly create that model. Certainly what government wants is for us to develop a model, then come back to them with that model. We would be willing to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Gaudet.

Just to follow up on what Mr. Gaudet was saying, have you had any conversations with the department about having a plant health act, perhaps similar to the animal health act?

[Keith Kuhl]

No, and again, we just came out of our annual meeting. We had initial discussions with CFIA to indicate to them that we want to open the discussions on this. However, it seems we're constantly in the position of putting out fires. With the current round of testing we've just completed with CFIA in order to ensure that we can continue export of seed potatoes, basically all of our time has been consumed just trying to ensure that we coordinate that together with government.

To our mind, the concept of compensation is something that takes more time. We have to deal with the issues of today immediately. We will continue dialoguing and working with government on this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Miller, you're on.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is very nice to be in your riding. It's a nice spot here.

Thanks, ladies and gentlemen, for being here today.

We've heard a lot of good comments and suggestions, with some new questions created, in the different provinces we've been in this week. I want to touch on a couple of the questions or points that were brought up in other provinces.

First, on PMRA and own use imports, somebody suggested--I don't whether it was yesterday in Saskatchewan or in Alberta the day before—that the own-use import, although a good thing, should be expanded to allow a small agribusiness in some of the small communities to have access under that. I'm not sure what the details or complications would be there, but I'd like to hear some comments on that, maybe from all of you.

As well, you talked about research, Tammy, and I believe you said you spent about 20% of your overall budget. Is that the correct number?

[Tammy Jones]

It's 50%.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Oh, I'm sorry. That's my farmer's hearing, I guess.

How does that spending compare with what the province and the feds put in? What improvements could we put in that range?

A couple of you touched on crop insurance. We had it suggested to us on one of the previous days that because of the differences in the provincial programs, some unfairness has been created, and there should be a national program. Another question that goes along with that is should crop insurance be mandatory?

I'll throw those questions out. It doesn't really matter who starts off.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Jones.

[Tammy Jones]

That's a lot of questions to answer in a very short amount of time.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I realize that.

[Tammy Jones]

In the area of own use imports and grower requested own use, we are supportive of pursuing the ultimate goal of NAFTA labelling where there's no need for people to be transporting chemicals across a border that is a figment of people's imaginations. We'd like to see harmonization there. If the way to do that, as Pulse Canada and other national associations have suggested in the OUI task force, is to pursue GROU instead of OUI at this point in time, then we're supportive of that. Again, the ultimate goal is NAFTA labelling and all producers having equal access to the chemicals they need for producing a crop.

With regard to research, we provide 50% of our funding to research. If we grew more pulse crops, based on the fact that we're at a 0.5% levy deduction, we would be able to provide more. At present, it ranges between $175,000 and $250,000 a year that we provide to research in Manitoba.

Certainly that's not anywhere comparable to what the province or the federal government provides in their budgeting, but we feel it's an indication of priorities—to provide signals to other areas in order to ensure that the necessary requirements are being done, including basic research in genetics and agronomics; to ensure that the crop can be produced so that there is an opportunity for value-added opportunities in Canada and in Manitoba; and to ensure that those other industries flourish based on the fact that we're providing a good basis for that.

In the area of production insurance, it has been very positive for producers to have production insurance. As I mentioned, we think price determination is an issue still. We don't disagree with linkages with CAIS. We think that makes sense as long as you're not double paying, or not having those types of issues arise as far as indicating participation in CAIS, and you're buying production insurance coverage.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Chorney.

[Brian Chorney]

On the OUI, the Manitoba Canola Growers does support the position of the OUI task force to move forward with the GROU program using the OUI as an on-the-shelf, ready-to-go type of option if the GROU program is proving not to be successful. Long term, we'd like to see harmonization with what is happening on the U.S. side of the border.

On the crop insurance side, talking about mandatory crop insurance, I think as producers you want to be able to pick and choose what levels you want, and these sorts of things. I don't think we would want to see that mandatory, but if a farmer chooses not to take crop insurance and he has a disaster, it should be his responsibility to address those issues. If you make that decision, you have to live with that decision. I think that's the way I would look at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Good morning. Thank you for being here.

I have a lot of questions. I wish I had that original seven minutes, although I'll try to make do.

The first question I have is with regard to subsidies and trade. All of you have addressed this issue. Mr. Bartley mentioned foreign subsidies injury. We talked of dispute resolution, Mr. Kuhl, and we talked about the WTO.

In British Columbia, we heard from the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, who initially came out with a statement with regard to dumping of Washington State apples, saying they would like to have a rapid response tariff mechanism in place that if apples were dumped today then something would kick in tomorrow, rather than going through this dispute resolution, which takes time, and by the time it's finished it's too late.

Recently they've come out with the idea of minimum pricing. In other words, instead of having some kind of dispute or tariffs, there is a minimum price for any apples that come into Canada. They would have to get that minimum price. Would you see that as an answer for corn, for example, where heavily subsidized American corn wouldn't be dumped in Canada by a price lower than production? That's the first question.

The other question is with regard to WTO and the whole idea of getting more markets and liberalizing trade. Yet at the same time, our government has committed to protecting supply management and we have other state enterprises, such as the Wheat Board, which other countries would like us to disband, the same as the supply management. How do we protect what we have and at the same time get more markets?

The other question is on rail. Are you experiencing difficulties apart from the strike?

And soy, can we get more value added in soy? Although we export 85% soy, we import soy to make soy drinks; these drinks are then Canadian, which touches on that labelling or content issue we talked about earlier.

Can you answer all those questions, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

In two minutes or less, for all of you.

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

Give us some answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Who would like to start?

Mr. Bartley.

[Bob Bartley]

I don't think minimum pricing is the way to go.

I'd like to see the government go the way of a WTO deal and untie the hands of Steve Verheul so that he can participate in the negotiations to end all the trade-distorting subsidies, or substantial reductions in trade-distorting subsidies, from foreign countries. I think that's where we have to start. Minimum pricing at the border is a band-aid.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Chorney.

[Brian Chorney]

I'd like to address your question on transportation.

From the canola growers' side, yes, a strike is one issue. Getting canola over the Rockies can be a weather concern at times, and service from the railways has not been great. Our concern is that currently we are looking at the export of about 5 million metric tonnes. If you look at the projections for 2015, we want to grow that by 50%, to about 7.5 million metric tonnes. If we can't do 5 million metric tonnes, how are we going to do 7.5 million metric tonnes?

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

Would anybody else like to comment? Go ahead, Mr. Kuhl.