Mr. Steckle.
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.
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.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Since I haven't raised this issue in New Brunswick, I need to do it.
As we're coming to the close of these public hearings on the road, there are some things that have very clearly been manifested: that we need to do things differently; that we need to take some lessons from other levels of government and other countries, perhaps, such as the United States, about how they do things—the recognition that certain programs could be perhaps deemed to be green if we did things and if we put the money forward in different ways, as Mr. Carmichael has pointed out on the biodiesel and ethanol side.
I also believe we need to take another lesson. Let me first of all start with the suggestion that we need to deem food security as important, as a policy statement from our country. If leadership in government makes the statement that sovereignty of our food supply is absolutely unquestionable, then we will find the necessary programs, then we will become creative in the way we do programming. I believe that.
I also believe that we need to eliminate ten provinces from the equation—not in terms of their input, but in terms of the delivery. We are fighting province against province. Quebec has a program called ASRA, as we all know, that can deliver money at a higher level than those in any other province in Canada, except perhaps Alberta. We in other provinces only look at that province as in an enviable position, and then of course we compete with it. Not only do we have transnational borders; we have interprovincial borders that we're dealing with.
We have to deal with these problems and eliminate them. I say once again, as Dr. Phil says, if it isn't working, then change it. Sometimes we have to start thinking outside the box we've worked in for the last many years. This is now my third time doing this, and as I said some days ago, the only thing that has changed is the colour of my hair, or perhaps the lack thereof, and the date on the calendar. We're still talking about the same things. It's time we moved forward.
Farmers want to make their money on the farm, not from the mailbox. We all want to eliminate the need for BRMs. Nevertheless, in the interim we may need them.
How would you feel about a central government delivery of programs? Consultations we have done enough of. As an example of what happened many years ago, back in the 1960s Eugene Whelan and Bill Stewart combined and brought together for the dairy community, and for the supply-managed sector as we know it today, the need for a supply management program. While it has its faults, it's been a very successful program, despite its faults. It was done with a limited amount of consultation and sort of arbitrarily put upon farmers, and those who are in it today wouldn't be without it.
So maybe we need to move from this point and start making some hard decisions. How do you feel about this one-level, one-tier-of-government delivery program?
10:50 a.m.
Business Development Manager, Eastern Greenway Oils Inc.
I'd love to respond to that one.
10:50 a.m.
Business Development Manager, Eastern Greenway Oils Inc.
That would be an immense help to our little start-up business.
My history in agriculture goes away back to the policies of our good friends in Quebec. But recently Ontario and Alberta are putting more money provincially into the biofuels business. We had a nice price model two weeks ago for our canola meal. It just took a shit-kicking when dried, distilled grains started coming east at $100 a tonne less. Now, product for product, it's about the same as our canola meal, so that blew that one out the window.
So yes to the concept of watching what we're doing within Canada.
Also, our livestock industry in the east has taken and will continue to take a hit if our big rich neighbours to the west prop up their livestock industry with provincial programming. They will have the benefit of that cheap feed, so it's all going to start moving there. Where do we end up?
10:50 a.m.
First Vice-President, Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick
I have two or three points. I probably don't have the history that some of you around the table do, but I agree that what we're doing is not working. That's what some of us alluded to when we said we need a vision of where we want to go and how to get there.
It would be great to have equal access across the country to some of these programs, as Ray alluded to. But we've seen and heard of examples of the importance of regional flexibility. One area's problem might be lack of water, while another's might be too much water.
Whatever way we can deliver it, however many pillars it takes, whatever you call it, or however you want to do it, you have to come up with a vision, decide how to get there, and do it, because what we're doing is not working.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Your time has expired, Mr. Steckle.
Did anybody else want to make a brief comment?
Mr. Atamanenko, do you have any follow-ups?
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I have a very quick question. The idea of disaster relief as a separate component to assist primary producers has come up today a bit and throughout our trip Also, there's the idea that to date we've had various ad hoc programs, which kick in quickly sometimes. In my very short career, in the last year, I've noticed that often there are discussions about whether it's the provinces or the feds; how much do they put in? In the meantime, farmers are waiting for some help.
Should we seriously get into this and have a program ready to go? Should we have it for natural—or as someone said in the west—and unnatural causes, and have a formula worked out with an advisory committee? The cost sharing is there. It's all ready to go, so if there is a flood today, a BSE crisis tomorrow, or something happens the day after, the money that's set aside is ready to go, so we don't have this disparity between provinces saying, well, Manitoba gave this much, Saskatchewan is only contributing that, and it's up to the feds to do 90%; and then no, they should do 60%. That's the whole idea.
To anybody, what are your thoughts on having something like this in place, parallel to what else we're trying to do in this area?
10:55 a.m.
Dairy Producer, As an Individual
I'll take the first crack at it.
If we look at examples where you're trying to deal with a disaster, you're far better off with a plan in place ahead of time. So if you're looking at it from the perspective of whether we need a plan regarding how we should deal with disasters, yes. Now, to go into the details of who spends how much and so on, that might have to be flexible, based on what the disaster was. You know, you have an evacuation plan for a fire at a school, or whatever. The more you have planned ahead of time, the better you can respond to the disaster and probably lessen the impact.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
10:55 a.m.
First Vice-President, Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick
I would definitely agree that we need to be prepared for the disaster. If avian influenza hits Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, central Ontario, or wherever, a lot of those producers don't have the time to wait, even if they are covered under CAIS, production insurance, or whatever. Their farms are at risk the day the press release comes out.
Perhaps a way to decide about the cost sharing, who will participate and at what level, would be to set up a disaster relief catastrophe fund, administered solely by the federal government, so that you would have that flexibility and responsiveness to the problem.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Very briefly, we've heard some good presentations. Like question or point period in the House, maybe each witness would like to make a 30-second concluding statement on what they've presented or heard from us this morning.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
In question period, we only get 35 seconds, so that's what Charlie's alluding to.
Mr. Speer.
10:55 a.m.
Dairy Producer, As an Individual
Thank you, Charlie.
I'll make the comment that it's important for the government to have an understanding of the needs of the industry. We need a plan in place, call it an agricultural bill or whatever, so that as an industry and as government we know our roles, how we're going to respond and move forward. Certainty is very nice when you're in business. Knowing the environment you're going to be working in is probably part of the strength of supply management.
10:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, it's important for government to have a long-term plan for agriculture. Included in that is succession planning, but just have a long-term plan with our agricultural policy, so that producers can see which direction the government is headed in. Of course, that's always up for change every three or four years. It certainly helps producers when they can look at it and say, well, at least the government's got a plan; we know where they're heading. Whether you agree with it or not, we know where we're going to be in three to four years. I think that's important.
10:55 a.m.
Secretary, Eastern Greenway Oils Inc.
I would echo what Don said, that it's great for the government to have a plan, so we can look 10 years ahead and know where we're going to be.