Mr. Hubbard, you have five minutes, please.
Evidence of meeting #54 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 programs.
Evidence of meeting #54 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 programs.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
April 19th, 2007 / 2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's good to hear the last two presenters talking about younger farmers and succession. We know that one situation is that fewer and fewer farmers are producing more and more.
Bill, in terms of your industry, the numbers are going down, but probably production is going up. We heard a lot of good things that the Province of Manitoba is doing.
Mr. Martin, you seemed to talk about having to go to the Treasury Board and sort of argue for how much money might be available to agriculture. What exactly is happening? You talked about increases in percentages, but figures are much better than percentages.
In terms of your provincial budget, what percentage of the budget is being devoted to agriculture, and is that percentage going up or down?
I know you worry about your 40%, sir, your cost-sharing business. But when you go with everyone else, is health care taking most of the money, and education taking a lot, and then transportation? What is happening with agriculture?
2:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Government of Manitoba
I apologize because I don't have answers to all of your questions, in terms of our percentage.
Having said that, I recognize, as do all of us around the table, that health care and education are two of the biggest portfolios in any government. They take up a very large percentage of spending.
Having said that, I think it's fair to say that we've been able to do well in terms of our department. This year, we have an increase in the overall budget for our department of about 11%, which is pretty surprising in our current situation.
I'm not going to try to defend the estimates, because—
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
What are you committing each year? How many millions are being committed to agriculture for the present year, 2007?
2:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Government of Manitoba
It's around $125 million or $130 million. In the last five years we've been able to average about a 2% per year increase, in terms of our budget. This may not seem like a lot, but when you're faced with continual challenges to reduce, not increase, budgets, that's doing pretty well.
I would also add that those are budget figures. For example, when you have situations in which you budgeted $53 million for CAIS and you come in at $129 million, this is not picked up in a budget figure. That's on top, in supplemental funding.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Is it a disaster when you have figures that are more than twice as much as you planned?
2:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Government of Manitoba
Do you mean a disaster for the province to come up with the money?
2:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Government of Manitoba
Oh. Clearly in 2005 there was a very big disaster for us, with the excess moisture situation we had. We had a lot of excess moisture claims through crop insurance, and in CAIS, as I say, there were very large payments to producers.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
In terms of our programming agenda, that probably should have been outside CAIS.
If we had a disaster program per se, should it be an annual concern, or a specific concern that some other program could address?
2:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Government of Manitoba
That's actually the exact challenge we're trying to deal with right now: to determine how you deal with major fluctuations like that. It is almost out of the scope of some provinces to be able to deal with them, and that's where we're coming from.
It is a significant disaster.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you. There were only a few seconds left.
I'd like to ask a question. We're talking about production insurance, and Neil did a good job this morning. We have quite a high participation rate in Manitoba. Is that because of how good the Manitoba program in production insurance is, or is it a reflection of how weak the other programs are and of farmers having to rely on production insurance to make ends meet?
Secondly, especially when we were in Saskatchewan and in B.C., comments were made that their production insurance does not work and is not well subscribed to, and that essentially we have a situation where maybe there should be a national crop insurance program. Maybe Manitoba is a model for that.
I want to get quick comments from Lorne and David on that.
2:20 p.m.
President, Keystone Agricultural Producers
From a farmer's perspective, Mr. Chair, the crop insurance program in Manitoba is well accepted. Certainly it's needed, because we have vagaries in the weather and changes of circumstances from year to year. It's very well run. It's a very well-managed program, and it's very well accepted out in the farming community.
Even though we have some difficulties from time to time with the levels of prices and the premium levels that have to be paid, it remains probably the best subscribed crop insurance program in Canada. There's certainly a level of satisfaction with it. But there are issues from time to time that still have to be dealt with.
2:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Government of Manitoba
From our perspective, crop insurance has probably always been the mainstay of our safety net programming. We've really tried to do a good job of listening to what is needed and further develop it. I think that has been a big factor. Keep it affordable, keep it so that you have individual productivity indexes, so that it's dealing with the issues of individual producers, and that kind of thing.
As to whether it should be a model for a national program, I would probably say no, because of the fact that each individual province has its own issues. It comes back to the flexibility issue. I think each province needs to design a program that's going to work for them, and they have to do that on their own—watching the other provinces, of course, in terms of the kinds of innovations they're doing, and that kind of thing. But they still have to do it on their own, as a basis for how it's going to serve their producers.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I know David wants to follow up, but if I buy house insurance, I can insure the entire value of my house. Should we have 100% crop insurance levels, at the appropriate premium?
2:25 p.m.
President, Keystone Agricultural Producers
The issue then becomes a trade issue and an affordability issue of making the program actuarially sound; that becomes an issue. Most producers would jump at the chance for 100% crop insurance.
The comment I wanted to make about moving to a national model is that I agree with Lorne: it would be very difficult to do, and I think we need that regional flexibility in the programming.
The other point I want to make too is that I'm a little afraid moving into livestock production insurance is going to dilute the efforts of crop production. It's going to be very difficult, I believe, under the proposals we've seen, to provide adequate livestock insurance under the production insurance envelope. I believe the coverage that's being offered will not be adequate.
I think we need to investigate other methods of providing that level of coverage for the livestock industry.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I want to thank all of you for your presentations today. It will help us in determining our report back to the House of Commons on APF and where we go in the future.
With that, we're going to suspend for five minutes. We're going to ask the witnesses to quickly leave the table so that the next group of witnesses can come forward.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay, we're back in session.
We only have an hour for this session. I ask the committee how they wish to proceed. Do we want to continue with questions at five-minute intervals—we're not going to make it all the way around after we have presentations—or do you want to have one round of seven minutes?
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay, we'll stay on five, just with the understanding that we're not going to make it all the way around the table.
We welcome to the table for this part of it, Cynthia Edwards and Greg Bruce, from Ducks Unlimited. Their headquarters are right here in Selkirk, down in Oak Hammock Marsh. We also welcome Alternate Land Use Services, and Bob Sopuck and Ian Wishart are going to speak on ALUS. And from the Consumer Interest Alliance, we have Jennifer Hillard and Florence Watson. Welcome, both of you, to the table.
I ask that all of you keep your presentations per organization to 10 minutes or less. We'd really appreciate that because of our tight timeframe here.
Cynthia, you're on first.
2:35 p.m.
Cynthia Edwards National Manager, Industry and Government Relations, Ducks Unlimited Canada
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear and be able to present Ducks Unlimited Canada's thoughts on the next generation of agricultural policy in Canada. We believe that an increased emphasis on our natural capital in agricultural areas can help improve the overall sustainability of this very important industry.
Ducks Unlimited Canada is a private non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation, restoration, and management of Canada's wetlands and upland habitats to benefit waterfowl, other wildlife, and people.
For almost 70 years we've been working with agricultural producers to increase the provision of waterfowl-friendly areas on lands they own and manage. We've delivered programs in conjunction with partners, including incentives to landowners through leases, conservation easements, incentive payments to convert marginal cropland to forage, and programs to entice producers to grow winter wheat. We've also conducted several pilot projects focused on utilizing the tax system to provide incentives to conserve natural areas.
Our natural capital includes our resources, ecosystems, land, and water and is as crucial to the wealth of this country as our human and productive capital are. The value of this capital is based on the quantity and quality of the ecological goods and services that flow from it. Examples of the “goods” are well known and include timber and agricultural commodities. The “services”, however, are extremely complex, are essential in supporting life, and are not easily replaced when lost. These include water purification, erosion control, mitigation of greenhouse gases, and protection from flooding events. We've been working to better understand the environmental and economic value of our natural capital and the goods and services it provides, including looking at carbon sequestration, the impact of wetlands on water quality and quantity, and on the environmental and economic benefits of forage conversion.
Many of the areas used for agriculture are also important to waterfowl and have thus been the focus of many of our programs in the past, and it is why we have a vested interest in the future of agricultural policy in Canada. Anyone who has spent time in the agriculture industry knows that certain activities have negatively impacted our water, fish, and wildlife resources.
However, my focus today is not to highlight those negative things but to focus on the positive environmental benefits that landowners provide, including clean air and water and wildlife habitat. But these producers are currently undercompensated for the provision of goods and services. By improving the linkage between the services that producers provide to the public and the public themselves, the provision of these services and the economic return to producers can increase. As we come to the end of the current agricultural policy framework and embark on the next generation, Ducks Unlimited Canada has developed several recommendations that we've submitted to this committee and to MPs previously.
The first is to have the recognition of environmental benefits fully entrenched in agricultural policy in the future. The national farm stewardship program should be enhanced and expanded to provide even greater environmental benefits and to move the policy discussion from focusing on the risks agriculture poses to increasing the benefits it provides. Although this is unlikely to “save the family farm”, it could provide a diversified revenue stream through expansion into carbon credit markets and through incentives for the provision of public goods. We encourage the government to develop fiscally responsible incentives based on measurable environmental benefits. The development of a national ecological goods and services program or policy founded on these principles will ensure it is effective, affordable, and sustainable, and we would be willing to assist Agriculture Canada in developing that framework.
Our second recommendation is to enhance the Greencover Canada program, which currently provides a broad suite of environmental benefits, such as greenhouse gas emissions reductions and improvements in the habitat available for fish and wildlife. However, as currently designed, only a small proportion of the acres under greencover has gone into priority waterfowl areas. The establishment of this perennial cover will help producers lower their input costs on cropland through reduced herbicide and fertilizer inputs and reduced machinery operating costs. From Ducks Unlimited Canada's perspective, expanding the program to two million acres in the Prairies over the next five years would significantly help to address the needs of waterfowl and other wildlife while providing direct benefits to producers.
Our final recommendation is that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, along with provincial and territorial governments, continue to promote wetland restoration through enhanced or preferential funding of it as an eligible activity within the current national farm stewardship program. Recognizing the contribution that landowners make when we're restoring wetlands will help ensure that these valuable areas are both restored and then retained on the landscape.
We've been encouraging our members and partners to provide input to the discussions on the next generation of agricultural policy, and we believe that the integration of the concept of ecological goods and services is integral to advancing the sustainability of the industry in Canada. The conservation of natural areas, and wetlands in particular, should be part of this new approach. The ecological goods and services concept recognizes the role that agriculture plays in society and is an area where more emphasis and research is needed. Our contribution to this research can help provide new opportunities for producers while improving the health of our environment, to the benefit of all Canadians.
To provide an example, we need only stroll down the pier to consider the Lake Winnipeg situation. This lake supports a commercial fishery that has an average annual landed value of over $20 million. It provides recreation and tourism opportunities and is host to sporting events and festivals. The Lake Winnipeg stewardship report notes that the lake also appears to be the most eutrophic among the world's 10 largest lakes, largely due to the enrichment of phosphorous and nitrogen. Because wetlands provide significant water filtration and flood attenuation, ongoing wetland loss in the watershed will only exacerbate the water quality deterioration. Agricultural policy designed to retain and restore wetlands could conceivably have profound benefits to the health of Lake Winnipeg and all of those who depend on it.
The Canadian government and Canadians in general have an opportunity to consider a new vision for agriculture. We have a choice. We can continue with the status quo or we can capitalize on the inherent wealth in our agricultural landscapes. We need to recognize the value of our natural capital and take a strategic approach to building on the assets we have. An effective ecological goods and services policy that recognizes and rewards the contribution of producers is an important component of an integrated strategy for the next generation. A focus on natural capital and the goods and services it provides can help diversify income, increase agricultural sustainability, and improve the quality of life for all Canadians.
I thank you for the opportunity to present our thoughts to this committee, and I welcome any and all questions you have.
Thank you.
2:40 p.m.
National Manager, Industry and Government Relations, Ducks Unlimited Canada
Yes, I do.
