Agriculture Committee on April 23rd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Devolin, you're on.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks to everyone for being here tonight. It's a lovely evening out there. I'm sure there's work you'd like to be doing back home.

I'd like to talk a little further about this issue of regional variation and flexibility at the provincial level. I'm sure most of you are aware that in Canada, constitutionally, certain jurisdictions are given to the provincial governments—health care and education, for example—and others are given exclusively to the federal government, national defence being the most obvious example. But there are others, like agriculture, that are actually shared. So constitutionally it's a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces. It's something I think people across the country struggle with.

Regional variation is good when your commodity is being treated more proactively in your province than somewhere else. The flip side is that in Ontario, for instance--and I'm from rural eastern Ontario—there are producers who are competing with farmers in Quebec who benefit from a more generous program in Quebec than we have in Ontario. So those farmers are crying foul, saying, this isn't fair; it's bad enough I have to compete with Americans, who have a more generous program, but now it's even within Canada.

So I think that's the other side of this issue, which is that in Prince Edward Island, for example, obviously potatoes are a major crop and that's something for which this province would probably be in the lead in terms of programs. But if you were producing something else that tends to come from somewhere else--I think we saw that recently, when Alberta topped up some of these 60-40 programs immediately and other provinces could not.

So here's my specific question regarding Prince Edward Island. As a small province with a relatively small population, with the cost of developing a large range of programs to service a large number of sectors in the agricultural community, particularly some of the smaller ones, is the provincial level the best place to do that? We chatted earlier today that possibly the federal government should play a larger role in these areas, including the dollars to make sure there's a level playing field across the country and that we can compete internationally.

Scott, you were the one who raised this issue initially. I wonder if you have any thoughts on that. The government is going to be working on some replacement programs here. Do you have any thoughts you'd like on the record?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Dingwell.

[Scott Dingwell]

Thank you.

P.E.I. does have to acknowledge its size in this issue, and there are some limitations. I think I am aware that in the original APF, Newfoundland's funding was provided en masse, in which they were allowed then to provide the scope and difference to the programs, which gave them a freedom to provincially isolate and target the issues that were particular to Newfoundland. That may be an avenue we wish to pursue.

As for the difference between Ontario and Quebec and unfair competition, the simple answer would be for Ontario to match that funding. That could be—

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

That's what the farmers say.

[Scott Dingwell]

That's what the farmers say? Well, I'm sorry, that's what I am.

But that parity does have to be brought forward somehow. It shouldn't be a bad thing that there is more funding in the system, and that's a question that we have to ask ourselves, why and how that is becoming the issue.

I'll go back to one of my original comments, that the debate on food supply as a national security issue is present in my mind. I think the potato board and several others of the presenters have mentioned it in passing. But it is of critical importance to know, if we wish to be self-sufficient in food production, we will have to find a path or a way to work through regional differences and maintain our rural economies and our rural production systems.

I don't have the exact answer for your question. I do very much wish to again acknowledge the need for those regional differences to be emphasized, with the acknowledgement that the last program created some problems when they were not fully recognized.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Does anybody else want to pick up on that? Just a short response, though, because Mr. Devolin's time is almost up.

[Mike Nabuurs, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture]

I think it's a mindset that we have to get our minds around. I'll provide one specific example, and I think this is specific to the way the program was developed and delivered. But the grains and oilseeds payment program in P.E.I. had a flaw in it federally. Federally, the way grains were recorded on farmers' tax returns, they we're not recognized as eligible payment, whereas they were across the rest of the country. We worked very hard to have that finally changed. So it was a line 39 item, where grains were recorded under pellets, silage, or screenings. Because there aren't any of those items on P.E.I., farmers were recording their lump sum grain sales on that particular line. Because that was excluded from the program, P.E.I. farmers did not receive that payment.

It was very simple for us to point that problem out in the program, but there was a simple roadblock and unwillingness to recognize that difference, and they would say no, that's the way the program is and we're not changing it; I'm sorry. We fought and fought, and finally, ultimately, we did get that changed and there was some just action taken.

My point here is that there needs to be a recognition that one program doesn't necessarily fit the mould across the country. If you work with the associations and the sectors in each province, I think there are ways to come up with methods that can address those differences.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Very quickly, Mr. MacIsaac.

[Kevin MacIsaac]

To address your concern about provincial versus federal recognition, as producers we're always caught in the middle of this. Is this a federal program or is this a provincial program? Who gave the funding for this? Really, as farmers we'll acknowledge publicly where the funding came from, and I don't think governments need to get us caught up, as they do, in whose particular program it is.

When we met with Minister Chuck Strahl and asked for support for our buy-down program, he was concerned about what would the provincial department be doing, what would Minister Jim Bagnell be doing. Likewise, when we met with him, there was a concern about the federal minister. We're just caught in the middle of this. Just provide the proper funding, and we'll give the proper recognition for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Thanks for taking time to be here. It's a pleasure again to visit your beautiful province. Thanks to Wayne for the tour. I really enjoyed that before we came here.

I have a question for the young farmers. I know farmers. I know young farmers. I have relatives who managed that inherited farm, that inherited machinery; they didn't start off from scratch and they're having a hard time. My cousin was working off-farm, and she and her husband are what we would call successful grain farmers.

Is it actually possible for someone who wants to enter farming to finish college, get a diploma or a degree--or even without that--and to start farming? you mentioned that there is a future farm program here that's the envy of other parts of Canada. Is it possible to do that in Prince Edward Island? How does it overcome the horrendous cost of machinery, and of fertilizers, and all of the other costs?

I would like to get some ideas from you folks on that.

[Ryan Weeks]

Thank you for your question.

It is becoming increasingly more difficult for young farmers to get into farming. It's apparent because you see it everywhere, whenever you talk to anybody in our group. Any young farmers or young people coming home from college are faced with a large debt in order to expand to accommodate two people at home. It's difficult.

I'm going to start again here. We'll go to the future farmer program.

The program has treated young Island farmers very well in the past four and soon to be five years. Interest rebate assistance is pro-rated according to education level. It actually gives an incentive to young people to finish school rather than quitting school to come home and farm. It kind of cuts their “kick at the can” a little shorter, so to speak; it limits their potential if you don't provide this incentive. That's not to say everybody will quit school if it's not there. There are currently 170 young farmers enrolled in the program.

This program is also is used for training assistance. Up to 50% of the eligible costs are covered, including travel, accommodation, and actual course costs. I think it's a very useful tool.

As a criterion for this, business plans need to be conducted. A business plan never hurts anybody. I think it's a very important tool to plan and have a vision for your farm and to see where your vision fits into Canada's vision of agriculture.

I'd also like to suggest that if this program is implemented nationwide, it needs to be implemented at a federal-provincial level, with maybe a 60-40 split. It's the kind of program to build on agriculture, not a disaster type of situation. I think it would free up provincial money for other assistance for innovation and to do research that may move the industry forward.

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

Can I interrupt you for a second?

I'm going to tackle this from another angle. We're talking about training, and we're talking about assistance. Most students who finish post-secondary education have a debt of some kind. It's hard enough when you have a “normal job”. If a young person wants to buy a farm, sit on a tractor, and do all that has to be done, is it possible without having some kind of a family base to get going? If it's not, then what should we do to help stimulate agriculture among your generation?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Smith wants to get in on this. I'll let Ms. Smith comment, and then Mr. Dingwell has a comment.

[Maria Smith, Prince Edward Island Young Farmers' Association]

I can use myself as a prime example of trying to get into farming.

I grew up on a large hog operation. My father started out very young. He built up the operation, assuming that the sons would take over. The first son started, but realized that he couldn't make any money at it. The second son tried to do it. He ended up quitting school to do it. He applied for the future farmers program, but couldn't get the large interest rate because he had to leave high school for the farm.

I got into the dairy industry about six years ago and I've been working for an employer who's highly recognized in the genetic industry. They have been able to pay me based on their income, because their industry is supply managed.

The point I want to make is that I want to be a dairy farmer. How do I become a dairy farmer? I don't have any equity. I don't have any land. How is the government going to help me start my own farm? How am I going to access money to buy quota? How am I going to access farmland and pay the debt load and the interest and all that sort of stuff?

If you ask young people if they want to be involved in the agriculture industry, what do you think they're going to say? Of course not. There's no money. They read the papers. They know the agriculture industry is not viable because we don't have a vision.

I think the future farmers program is a step in this direction, but we need to see interest-free loans for people starting out in the business. And that doesn't mean only dairy. That doesn't mean only beef or grains.

The point is I am a very...I'm not going to say intelligent young woman, but I have aspirations. And I have a passion for agriculture. I recently got a new job that has to do with rural development. But where do I want to be? I want to be in agriculture. I want to help us through this crisis, because we need to get through this crisis.

I grew up in this industry and I want to help my family farm get back on track. I don't know how we're going to do that, because we're in a financial situation right now. As you can tell by my voice, I'm shaky because this is how much agriculture means to me. I want to get through to the committee members because I still feel the APF's two consultations didn't meet what we need to address, and that is the prices at the marketplace.

Wayne Easter's report, “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace”, addresses all these problems. We need to address how we are going to get farmers' money back in their pockets.

We've got to look at Loblaws. We've got to look at Sobeys. We've got to approach this on a retail level. We need to introduce price floors. We need to do something so we know we're guaranteed a price and we're bringing home money to the farmers so we can produce food for Canada. I don't know what else I can say.

I am glad the committee came here to P.E.I. I have been to the CYFF on the national level in Ottawa. I sat down with you folks, and I thought that was very beneficial. Coming here and going to each province in Canada--we all have different needs--and taking on the question of regional and provincial needs.... Out west, they're larger in the wheat sector. We have a smaller base here. Those programs need to meet us in different ways.

In closing, I'd just like to thank you for coming to the island.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Alex, your time, unfortunately, has expired by quite a bit.

Mr. Hubbard, you're on.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you. Following that is difficult.

What you're saying is that there's so much capitalization in agriculture that unless you inherit a farm, it's very difficult to begin. Mr. Chair, I think that's a very important point to make. If we don't acknowledge that, we're certainly not going to see much of a future in this country.

In the presentations today, we heard of different sectors and different regions, but if we go back to programs--we have provincial and federal programs--are there too many programs? Is it too complicated? Do you think there could be a better system, having programs in certain areas federally and certain areas provincially?

A lot of people seem to get hung up on programs. They never seem to have an answer about how they're going to work. As you say, there's very little vision in terms of whether they'll be there in three years' time. And with it, we are dealing with the WTO and with all sorts of trade agreements that we could be getting into difficulty with.

But federally, we've put a lot of money into agriculture. The minister recently announced a lot of money. Is it going to help anybody?

Scott, you're right to ask if what the minister announced just a few weeks ago will help you--billions of dollars. Apparently the government today has put more money into agriculture, they say, than any government in the past. I'm a Liberal; I challenge that a little bit. But this is the message that Chuck Strahl is telling Parliament, that never before has a government put more money out there for farmers.

But we travel the country, and everybody seems to be quite unhappy about what their lot will be.

Scott.

[Scott Dingwell]

Thank you.

Yes, it will help me, because in its absence we will utterly fail. Just throwing money at a problem is not enough. It has to come with a strategy, with a purpose.

I'll take us back for a second to the BSE crisis. The money that was put out—desperately needed—in transition funding was immediately sucked through the very effective system, out of producers' hands, up the chain. And that is all right, because that's the chain we want; that's the free market economy we've built. I think we won't go very far before we'll get back to competitive issues.

I, for one, am paying enough for food at the grocery store. I don't think we need to mandate higher prices at the grocery store. What we do have to mandate is a fair return on our investments.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Let's get back to the question I asked. How was the money that you saw was supposed to flow going to help you directly? Not how long, but how was it going to maintain your farm and enable you to survive and succeed and better yourself?

[Scott Dingwell]

In my personal circumstance, through NOFG we are applying to the Agri-Opportunities program. We are hoping to use that money to develop and build value-added opportunities that will, through our hog sector, allow us to achieve a higher percentage of the retail dollar because the differentiation is created at the farm level. I think that's a positive step forward in that program. That money will benefit me.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Ryan, how about your group, the young farmers?

Maybe Mark's going to answer, is he?

[Mark Bernard, Member, Prince Edward Island Young Farmers' Association]

I'm an organic farmer, so I'm differentiating my product to the point where I've changed to what the consumer is demanding. I think maybe there are a few too many programs. This past winter I got into meeting overload from going to too many information sessions and different things.

As for the money, I'm not sure exactly how it's going to filter down and through. I always worry, when federal money is announced, that it's going to be lost in administration processes and that there will be very little coming down to the end farmer.

I don't know how else to comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

John, do you want to get in?

[John Colwill]

I'll just make a quick comment.

Yes, the money will help, I guess. I'm not meaning to be cynical, but the question would be when. Time is ticking by, and everybody's trying to get a crop in, and the most we're hearing is that everything's tied up because the federal and provincial governments are bickering over cost shares and who's going to do what. That's not very helpful.

I have just a couple of other comments on regional flexibility. I think what it boils down to is that provinces like Prince Edward Island only have so much money for agriculture. It's not that they're not putting money into agriculture. It's that they're helping us in other ways and can't always contribute their 40% share. I think for that reason alone there needs to be a little more flexibility on what is cost-shared in regions like this.

While we're on the term “flexibility”, the CAIS inventory transition program, as you know, was only budgeted at about half enough money, so there was a shortfall there. At the same time, there was a new program announced, the Canadian farm families options program, which in our understanding was far from being all spent. So the question was asked, why, since this is all agriculture, can't those dollars go towards topping up the transition program? The answer was that it's a separate pot and it has to go back to general revenue. That just seems a bit silly, because we're trying to help agriculture here.

I'm hoping, and I don't know what the answer is, that when Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada divide APF into more pillars they don't all have a separate drawer so that we're going to get that answer down the road, that the money can't go from one drawer to the other.

So there are lots of questions. I know that agriculture in the future needs people like Maria and Mark and Ryan. Wayne, I'm sure, will agree that when you drive around Prince Edward Island, you see we have literally missed a generation in agriculture, with a few exceptions. It's really positive to see so many young people interested, and we have to find ways to make sure they stay in the industry.