Evidence of meeting #57 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 farm.
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
It would be somewhat hypocritical not to expect that. If we're going to ask it of people in Canada, we should ask it of people in other countries. To me, it's that simple.
It's something we should look into, because it's costing us a lot of money. It's something we're working really hard for, but why should we lose out because other people don't want to do it and they can get away with that?
1 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
While we're meeting certain standards that are driving us out of business, they're able to export products here more cheaply, whether it's industrial or agriculture.
There may be others who want to come in on that as well.
But one other point I'd like to get on the record is that both the egg presentations and potato presentations mentioned compensation. First of all, you both mentioned CFIA getting into national testing in the potato industry and with egg producers in terms of conducting national surveillance. They're not doing it in the United States. If we find a problem, it means we have to shut the industry down in an area. Why do we make such an effort to find one? I don't care what anyone says, but in terms of BSE in the States, I believe they shoot, shovel, and bury. We make it a national issue as much as we can on the front page of The Globe and Mail.
I think we should give it some serious consideration, but the point is this. Before we go to national testing and national surveillance in these industries, do you believe the Government of Canada must first develop a compensation package that will compensate you for lost product, be it potatoes or egg layers? Included in that compensation are the loss of use of facilities, the loss of use of productive capacity, the impact it may have on labour in the community, and so on.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Easter's time has expired, so please keep your comments very brief.
Mr. Garneau.
1 p.m.
Executive Director, Potatoes New Brunswick
That's the way we have to go. That's why I wanted to make a point of that today. In the U.S. they don't have the equivalent to CFIA in potatoes. Each producing state has its own certification set-up. They don't have a national system like we do, so we're always going to be in that situation. We are always quick to find out stuff here and let everyone know, so it really doesn't do us any service.
1 p.m.
New Brunswick Egg Producers
I agree there should be a compensation program if we're going to be forced to have our industry and our product destroyed. We have to be able to recover from that; otherwise the industry just won't be there.
1 p.m.
Chairman, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick
One thing I would like to mention in that regard is that the BSE crisis was a national initiative, and that's how it should have been. But when we talked about limiting the impact to all of Canada, there was one province that said no, that's not going to happen. The east is in this just as much as the west is into it. At the same time, that particular province then supplemented its producers twice as much as everybody else could.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And gentlemen, thanks very much for being here today.
I want to talk about the last couple of points Mr. Easter mentioned. He talks about the Americans: shoot, shovel, and bury.
The bottom line is that up here we have a standard. I don't know whether our consumer really expects it or not, but it's there. We're too honest a country—and I don't use that facetiously—compared to some other countries. If you want to cut back on the monitoring that somebody mentioned, the only way is to get rid of half the CFIA. Is that going to be acceptable to the public? Not likely. So it's probably not an option.
But a good point was made. That's why I brought it up.
Another point that was talked about here today is about trying to make it so that young farmers can get in, and Justin and Jens, there's nothing I want to see more. I have three sons, and none of them are going to farm. They are not going to take over the farm, for various reasons. They've all got good jobs. For one of them, it certainly is the money aspect. My youngest son said to me that he doesn't want to work 20 hours a day the way I have. That's a comment I've heard.
There are a number of factors, but getting back to why I bring this up, if government in some way funds and makes it easier for people to get capital, young guys and young ladies like you, the next thing is that every business in the country is going to stand up. The argument for that is that you can say we're doing it for food security, but it is still going to be a hell of a sell to the rest of the public. So if there are any general comments on how we sell that, I'm open to them and I think everybody around this table is.
Another thing that has been fairly prominent in the west, and certainly here yesterday and today, is about one government body dealing with agriculture. The problem there, and I'll use my own province of Ontario, is that there'll be hell to pay. They don't want to let go of it. Danny Williams, I am quite sure, is not going to let go of it without a fight. So that's a problem.
The only way we can achieve this is that, first of all, you have to have a federal government that will say, yes, they will do that. But secondly, we need the industry to fight alongside and say to the provinces, “Look, we've had enough of this dual thing. You can't get it right; it takes too long, too much red tape. We need you to help us.”
My question to you is this. If that is decided at some point, will each one of your commodity groups stand beside the government and lead that fight? If you're going to have 10 provinces dealing with it, then you don't have one plan. The way I see it, unless I'm missing something, it has to be the federal government. So I leave that open for comments.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
There are key questions there. One is on selling this to the public and the second is selling the idea of a central federal ag program or ag department.
Mr. Moffett.
1:05 p.m.
Director, Porc NB Pork
Mr. Miller, I'll comment on the issue of how you sell it to the public.
You fellows talked at the earlier session quite a bit about whether we get our money from the marketplace or from the government, and every farmer would say they would prefer to get it from the marketplace, obviously. But that said, we're here partly because we're concerned that our competitors around the world, or wherever they be, are also getting government subsidies. We really do need to have a level playing field, so I don't think we need to be too embarrassed about that. But I think the way we need to sell it to the public is to stand up and talk about our industry a little bit more and about how important it is.
I talked earlier about the primary producer, how capital intensive it is and how difficult it is to run an operation, how prone we are to risk and fluctuations in our income. I think the point I'm trying to make is that normally we would say that how goes the farmer, so goes the nation. Farming is such a basic part of our economy. We often say that every job you create on-farm creates seven jobs off-farm, and obviously the converse: every farm we lose, we're going to lose seven other jobs. Right?
I think governments do participate in the economy in various ways, and through agriculture is one. My preference would be that they didn't have to participate as much, but the reality is that they do because of what goes on around the world. I think we need to present the case that we're a basic part of the economy, and if we lose agriculture, we lose a lot of other things besides agriculture.
That's one question.
1:05 p.m.
Vice-Chairman, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick
On the selling to the public or the concept of farming, I think Justin hit it very well in saying that we as an industry and government have to educate the Canadian consumer as to where our food supply comes from, our food sovereignty of this country. Any country that depends on an outside source to feed its country is really putting itself at risk. So we have to make sure people are aware that they should value food security.
An initiative for that would be a program to get the next generation on the farm, like a young farmer program, whether it be interest loans or whatever. But I think that's how you can portray it to the consumers, as a way to garner food security.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Wouldn't you say, though, that the industry has been trying to do that? If we've talked about that for years but somehow we're not getting that message through, are we doing it wrong?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
Chairman, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick
With regard to selling it to the public, I don't think the public really cares where their food comes from, in general. They may prefer Canadian products. I think we have to sell it more to provincial governments.
You mentioned that you come from Ontario. In Ontario you have three counties that have a greater output in agricultural commodities than the three maritime provinces together. So if, for example, the federal government says it's going to concentrate on the Maritimes a little bit more, the first thing you will hear is, “What about me, my province?” So you have to sell it to the provincial governments rather than to the general public.
1:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I think one major aspect of this would be to put this in the education system at the primary level. Education about food should be as important as math or reading. It should be a basic thing that everybody learns, right from the get-go, to build an appreciation for it.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Since I'm sweeping up today and I'd like to be very positive in concluding, I think we really need to assess where we've come from and where we want to go. I don't think any of you really addressed the issue that Mr. Miller raised, which I've been raising for a long time, and that is that we resort to a single-delivery government program. That doesn't preclude provinces' being involved in leading up to programs, because provinces differ from each other. But simply put, we can't have this fighting between provinces. There is one United States Farm Bill—only one—and they have 50 states.
I started farming in 1965. I was born in 1942. If you do the math, you'll find that I'm soon going be drawing the brown envelope. But having said that, there have been three generations, almost four generations, that have come along since I first came to be a part of my community. Those people, when I was a young man, were perhaps one generation removed from the farm. Today they are four generations removed from the farm. They really don't care, as you said, Mr. Dykstra, where their food comes from.
So I think it's incumbent upon government and farm agencies to work together and to work very closely. That's why I want to reduce government, so that we get the message out to Canadians that we stand by our Canadian people in terms of our food supply and recognizing the importance of it, and that we will stand by our farming community so that we have farmers for the future. That is simply where I believe we need to go.
When we look at what we've been doing, we've been reducing the trade desks throughout the world. We've been reducing our impact in terms of doing bilateral agreements. I think we have to get out there and take some lessons from the Americans, not only in terms of our delivery of programs but in terms of being aggressive. We have a generation of people out there today who think we should free-range our chickens, that we should loose-house our hogs. That's at a tremendous cost, and little do they realize or understand the impact of the lessening—and perhaps the bio-security of doing agriculture on those terms. They don't understand it.
So whether they understand it or not, I think we have to fight back. If we're going to sit back and try to educate, it's not going to happen in my lifetime, and it won't happen in your lifetime, even for you young gentlemen.
I'd like to think that you would leave today thinking that there will be governments in the future that will care about agriculture enough to provide programs. I was able to borrow money at 5%, but I went through that 22% period. Let me tell you, it wasn't easy. I still have that feeling when I see an envelope come from the bank. I remember those letters coming. They don't contain the same information today, but let me tell you, it's not a good feeling.
I can only encourage everyone to stand together and stand firm and be committed, because I really wonder why you guys want to farm. I don't want to leave it at that, because I think it's wonderful that we have young people who want to continue with the business of farming.
I'm concluding with just some of these comments, but in Abbotsford we did put forward recommendations, because we were there for hearings. That's in response to your question, Mr. Durnnian, about why we're not supporting the industry in terms of compensation. We have recommendations that do support your view. We have to act upon them.
If there is time for a comment, fine. If not, those are my thoughts as I leave you today in Fredericton.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Does anyone want to touch on any of the points Mr. Steckle has raised?
Mr. Durnnian.
1:10 p.m.
New Brunswick Egg Producers
I agree with having a federal policy. That would eliminate the fight between the provinces. But with the federal policy, you have to have an office in every different region.