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 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
My question was dealing more with the security of our food supply.
2 p.m.
President, Keystone Agricultural Producers
Okay.
In western Canada we are far more than self-sufficient in food production. Our biggest challenge is getting the consumer to realize what a bargain they're getting for the food we produce. We are producing, for the most part, below the cost of production.
In western Canada we see some tremendous opportunities, not in the food security side of things, but in the diversification opportunities we see coming forward, whether it's biofuels, nutraceuticals, or health and wellness products. I'm talking about diversification efforts, and they relate to what Lorne said about extension services from the department. We have some tremendous opportunities.
It is interesting that you touched on the rail issue, because we had a meeting this morning with our municipal federation in Manitoba, AMM, to talk about that particular issue. We're facing a problem in the southern part of the province with proposals to abandon three sections of rail line. We're certainly hoping there will be an opportunity to bring the Standing Committee on Transportation to Manitoba to hear some of those issues. It's critical that we retain the infrastructure to expand the horizons and expand their opportunities in Manitoba in that regard.
2 p.m.
General Manager, Manitoba Chicken Producers
In the poultry industry we've been very aggressive about the food safety issue. We were one of the first provinces to have 100% certification of all producers in our food safety programs, again totally funded by producers.
The issues we have with food safety or food security are the standards of the imports and whether the consumer knows that 10% of the chickens they see are imported--and not necessarily to the standards of our own country.
You also mentioned the size of the farms. We certainly promote producers to do what's right for their own individual situations, but we have been able to maintain a strong number of smaller producers because our industry is sustainable and consistently allows producers to make a living doing what they do.
On the infrastructure, certainly David would be in a better position to give a general answer about all farming components. Specific to poultry, our commodities move by truck, and rail is not an issue with poultry.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
I think this is a group of people who probably understand what's happening in agriculture and what's happening in Canada relative to our farming communities better than probably we even admit sometimes. But I think there is consensus that for the last 15 years, perhaps even longer than that, things haven't changed very much, other than the date on the calendar or the colour of our hair, because we've been talking about these very same things for a very long time. But we also do know some things that have been with us for a long time have been very stable and have been very good for the industry. One of them was supply management. Even though it has faults, it is one of the issues we have supported.
As governments, we've supported that institution of supply management, the SM5 group. We've also supported the Wheat Board. There are things that have been institutionally there and have served Canada well. But somehow, we seem to want to undermine it. I'm just beginning to wonder whether it's time we started taking a different focus.
The food security that my colleague was talking about is very important. We've come to accept food as a natural given. We have it, we take it for granted, and it should be free. But there is lots of wealth in the industry. The only problem is the primary producer is not sharing in that wealth, and I think it's time we started looking at it in different terms than we have.
We don't want to model after the U.S. The U.S. has one farm bill, and that is the delivery mechanism. It has input into that farm bill from various states, of course, as we should have here. But I'm wondering whether one-government delivery wouldn't be better than having 10 provinces. You would be working for an agency of the federal government. You wouldn't be working for the Manitoba Department of Agriculture. That wouldn't preclude a province having an arm of agriculture, but certainly not the delivery of the moneys. We keep hearing Manitoba hasn't got the money. They have a huge land base a and low population. Saskatchewan is the same. Quebec has a different farm program than Ontario. So we have interprovincial trade barriers.
Isn't it about time we started looking at this picture in a different way, from a different vantage point? We're going to be here 15 years from now doing this. All we're doing is adding, and CAIS was supposed to be the one-stop shop for everything; one stop fixes it all. It doesn't work because we have different concerns in different provinces. But we need to make the programs fit so all provinces can be equally affected and taken care of, because we're not going to have agriculture in the future, not in the way we know it. It will be owned by the multinationals, and we don't want the Cargills and the Maple Leafs and the ADMs and these people controlling our food in the future. If we do, then the security will be dependent upon them.
That's my view. I realize I've got five minutes. You've got a minute left, I think. It needs to go on the record, and I'm dead serious about this.
2:05 p.m.
President, Keystone Agricultural Producers
I think anything we can do for confidence in the industry and confidence in the financial institutions to make investments in agriculture would be good, whether it's one jurisdiction overseeing the safety nets...and that sure would take a lot of complication out of the picture. It would put a bit more certainty, knowing where our industry was going. We have a lot of issues to solve.
That was my opening comment, that we had a program with no vision behind it, and we need that vision. We need that picture of where we're going. Then we can make all the adjustments along the way. It gets back to that other point I made about having all the pieces of the puzzle.
All too often we get tied up in the politics of agriculture, and we get a bit here, a bit there, and a bit there. All the bits in between that make it work don't happen, whether it's regulation, whether it's policy change, you name it. We're just always short of that one piece of the puzzle. Until we can make a determined effort to put all the pieces in place, change all the regulations, do whatever we need to do, we'll continue to flounder and we'll be here in the next 15 years saying exactly the same thing.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Martin, do you want to comment on the Province of Manitoba having no money? Should it have a department of agriculture?
2:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Government of Manitoba
It is interesting, because of course we have a shared jurisdiction in this country in terms of agriculture. That's part of the challenge we have. Having said that, of virtually all our trading partners, the federal government is the major player in terms of agricultural policy and safety net programming and those kinds of things, so it makes for a big challenge.
It would make my job a lot simpler in some respects, I imagine. But the other thing I would argue is that I strongly believe we know a heck of a lot better what's happening on the ground here in Manitoba with our agricultural stakeholders—no offence to Ottawa—than they do in Ottawa.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
That's for sure. I'm not suggesting we would ever eliminate that arm. We need that.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
April 19th, 2007 / 2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen, and thanks for coming here today.
Something that needs to be noted here is that Gimli happens to be the smallest place we've visited on this tour, yet we've had the largest number of interested parties here.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
It's either because of the MP or going to small places where the heart of agriculture is. It may be a good thing, but anyway it's a credit to the industry here in Manitoba, and we appreciate your coming here.
I have a couple of things. I'd like Waldie Klassen to talk a little bit more on what government might be able to do in keeping young people in agriculture and attracting them to it--succession planning. You talked about one thing that has been done recently that I hope helps a little bit, and I'm sure there are other things we can do in increasing capital gains. There might be a little benefit there to parents wanting to pass over to agriculture.
Mr. Martin, you mentioned that your crop insurance is best. I in no way doubt that, because I don't know enough about how crop insurance works here in Manitoba. I know that Ontario's leaves a little bit to be desired where I farm. Yesterday Saskatchewan farmers as well indicated to us that Alberta's crop insurance was quite a bit better than theirs.
I'll turn it over to Waldie to comment on the first one, and maybe you could address the second one.
2:10 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Chicken Producers
Some of the issues that have been brought up I find interesting.
You talked about succession planning and going to the next generation. I'd like to refer back to our last annual general meeting. If I looked across the crowd, there were not a lot of people with the same colour of hair as I have. I've been around the industry for a long time, and I've appreciated the industry very much. Succession planning is there, and as a board we've made every effort to make sure individual small farmers can stay in business and survive.
The success of the industry ultimately is whether it's profitable. We're not looking for government handouts. We're looking for an industry that is self-sustaining and self-supporting. We have options in Manitoba. We have young farmers who want to get into the business, and supply management allows that to happen. Young guys can get into the business, and young families can start in the business and be successful. The key to the whole thing is that it's profitable enough for them to be interested in that type of farming. Whether they diversify into other areas is up to them; they have the opportunity to do it.
2:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Government of Manitoba
Thank you.
First of all, I just wanted to let you know that not only is Gimli a pretty good spot to be, it's also “paradise” in Icelandic. I just want to leave that with you.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
2:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Government of Manitoba
It is the heart of New Iceland, absolutely. I grew up here; I've been here most of my life.
When I say our crop insurance program is the best in the country, I firmly believe it. One of the biggest reasons--and you might have heard this from Neil Hamilton this morning--is that we've done a pretty good job of listening to our stakeholders and producers.
We can't do everything. What we've been trying to do, though, is ensure that we have a sustainable program that is going to meet the needs of the producers, and we try to innovate with new products and new commodities. We do pilot projects and those kinds of things to innovate and get some new programs happening in the crop insurance program.
As a result, at last count we had about 90% of the annual crop acres covered in this province. One of the things they've been known to brag about a little bit is that in the Starbuck agency area, literally every acre is covered by crop insurance, and virtually all of it is at the top level of coverage. We look at that as saying this program works. It has done a good job for producers.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Do I have a little bit of time?
Mr. Swan and Mr. Hiltz, you're both in dairy and poultry. Have you any comments, either one of you, about succession planning? Do you have any suggestions for government that could make it easier?
2:15 p.m.
Board Member, District 5, Dairy Farmers of Manitoba
First, Mr. Miller, part of the response to the last study we did within the dairy industry in Manitoba showed that the average age is 42. So I think we've done very well, and the succession planning is actually happening there.
We've always maintained that we get our returns in the marketplace, not from the mailbox. So we just need government assistance, as far as legislation is concerned. We certainly appreciate the position they took with article 28. Things like that can certainly be a big benefit to the dairy industry.
2:15 p.m.
General Manager, Manitoba Chicken Producers
We would echo Bill's comments. Our average age is significantly younger than the average age of a farmer in Canada, with regard to our producers.
Waldie's right. He's one of the few with silver linings.
Again, the most important thing is to keep the industry successful. This will draw in young people and make for the industry's succession planning. People have confidence in our industry, and they're willing to participate in it. As importantly, the financial institutions are willing to support their desire to be involved in our industry.
So the three pillars of supply management, having it as policy, and protecting our domestic markets with TRQs are issues that keep our industry sustainable and attract young producers.