Monsieur Bellavance, s'il vous plaît.
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.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you for your presentations.
I will begin with Mr. Gareau. What you have said about income security is similar to what we have heard from other potato producers. We were on Prince Edward Island yesterday. I have obviously met with potato producers in Quebec, mainly those at Saint-Amable, where we have had the severe crisis with the golden nematode. They are saying the same thing as other crop producers, especially regarding the need to bring back a self-managed program. We are hearing that idea more and more often.
Do you think that we should create a program similar to the old NISA, which had a risk self-management component, and twin it with the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, which would cover major risks where the margin dropped by over 15% compared with historical levels and would include a disaster relief component?
12:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Potatoes New Brunswick
I think that this would be the best way to look at it. Under the self-managed programs, producers would have control over some of the funding. A similar program is needed for disaster relief, when something happens that is out of the producer's control.
I think that both programs are needed and would complement each other.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
You are in a good position to understand what went on. On Prince Edward Island, there was the problem of the potato wart, and in Quebec, we had the problem of the potato cyst nematode. We had to appeal to the government, which finally set up an ad hoc program.
12:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Potatoes New Brunswick
That is why I suggested that there be a program, because we have seen the effects of establishing one. I know that this has a greater effect on the producers in the provinces; the potato wart is a problem that affects producers on Prince Edward Island.
Every time something like this occurs, we are put in a difficult situation because the U.S. border could shut down immediately. If this were to happen, no one would have access. There should be a program, even for those who are not directly affected.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
To your mind, how should such a program be financed? Should there be funding from both the federal and provincial governments? In your opinion, would this type of program require flexibility?
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Potatoes New Brunswick
In the beginning, money is required, but this is a self-managed program. At some point, less money would be required from the federal government.
I believe that funds should come from the market. We do not want government to always have to shell out for producers. However, we must start somewhere. We could start with a program similar to the one tried out in New Brunswick. That was our self-managed program. It had a lifespan of two years. It worked well, but has been completely overhauled. I believe that there was enormous potential.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Durnnian, I listened to your presentation closely. You talked at length about compensations paid out in the case of catastrophes. You talked about the number of chickens you owned. You undoubtedly know that egg producers are also entitled to compensation should they lose their chickens.
This compensation was significantly reduced. Are you aware of that?
12:40 p.m.
Mike Durnnian
Yes, that was my reason, that it was reduced. It used to be around $30 for a bird. Now it's down, as I said, to $7 or $8.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I knew that you knew, but I understood you to say that you were entitled to $35. In fact, this amount has been reduced substantially.
Therefore, even if you have already done so, I'd like you to talk to us about the serious consequences for producers who could feel the impact.
If I understand your view correctly, we absolutely have to establish a program that includes a component for catastrophes. Would such a component compensate for the losses caused by the large discrepancy between compensation provided previously and compensation that is now being offered by the government?
12:40 p.m.
Mike Durnnian
It has to be figured out. As I said, if you can show the paperwork for the money that you're missing or losing towards your production costs—You still have to keep paying the bills. When I had said it, I said it wrong; I did understand that it used to be $30, or whatever, per bird. That was reduced.
I don't know what type of program. If you look out in B.C., they destroyed 19 million birds. There were some farms that didn't get birds back for almost two years, and there were other farms that just closed down. They just couldn't cope with it.
This is caused by the governments, and not just our government but the governments around the world, saying, this is what we're going to do. If you're going to destroy your food supply due to government regulations, I feel that the government should fully compensate you—at least to get you back to where you were. I'm not asking for free money or anything, but just for what they destroyed, to put it back so you can continue on, otherwise you won't be there. Your food will have to come from someplace else.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thanks for being here today. I'm an MP from central Ontario, a riding with a fair amount of agriculture in the southern half of it. I come from the northern half, where the rocks and the hills and the trees are. So I'm not a farmer, but I'm empathetic and sympathetic to the farm community and I'm trying to learn about it. I'm trying to see if there's a path through this somehow so that we can make farming viable, because at the end of the day that's what we're really talking about: creating a situation where farming is viable and you can sell what you produce and make a living at it and cover your costs.
One of the things that keep striking me as I listen in these consultations is the difference between people who are producing basic commodities versus those who have figured out a way, somehow, to increase the value of whatever it is they produce, maybe through further processing, maybe through innovative marketing, maybe through direct marketing.
The example of the eggs in Florida I found interesting. They're still eggs, right? The dozen that were being sold for over $2, and you were getting two and a half dozen for less than $2. And people are paying $2.80. So I say this as a consumer. I stand in front of the milk in the supermarket and I have to decide whether I'm going to pay an extra dollar for that micro-filtered milk. I don't know. I don't know whether that's better or not, but I think there are a lot of consumers who struggle to pay for their groceries every week and there are lots of other consumers whose grocery bill is a relatively small portion of what they spend. They don't think twice about adding $20 to their cable bill to get a bunch of pay channels, so they have the money to spend.
I think somehow we have to figure out a way to make consumers value Canadian farm products more.
Mr. Dykstra, you talked about food standards. When I buy raspberries grown in Canada, I have a sense of the food standards that were applied when those were produced, but if they're from Guatemala, I have no idea what was used there. I know in the past sometimes food standards have been used as a non-tariff barrier, and there are famous cases in Japan and Korea and other places where they just use it basically to keep things out. So I'm not talking about that.
Do you have any ideas in terms of how in Canada we can make that connection with consumers? They're not going to buy it because we browbeat them into buying it, but I think consumers will pay 50¢ more for something if they actually think it's better for them or their families.
From that point of view, perhaps, Mr. Dykstra, you could start. Do you have any ideas of how, as Canadian producers, we can communicate that to consumers so they're prepared to pay more for something that they feel is of higher value, that's produced here in Canada?
12:45 p.m.
Chairman, Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick
Thank you for the question.
The Dairy Farmers of Canada organization has a little logo, this little white cow on a blue background, and they are trying to brand Canadian dairy products with that little white cow. The trouble is this. It makes an awful lot of sense, and Canadian beef outside Canada has had great response to their red cow on a red maple leaf, but here in Canada, unfortunately, we seem to have a situation where 25% of the population doesn't care what it has to pay for the products, and then we have 50% who are starting to look around, and unfortunately we have a 25% group of people who can afford only the very cheapest. So we have only a small market for which we can charge almost anything for a product as long as it's branded and they know the background of it. The other 50% or 75% do not really care.
This morning I was fortunate enough to sit in this room when you made the distinction about your area. You said that at one point in time you had people come to holiday in your area from Toronto, and now they all seem to be going to Cuba and Mexico. Why are they doing that? Because the value is the same.
But why is the value the same? Because unfortunately, where they have these areas in Mexico and Cuba, they are still sitting on that little tiny island, that protected little resort, and they don't see what is really going on outside, where the poverty really is. And that poverty is where we, as a western society, are going on holiday to. We are going to those resorts on the backs of these poor people. That is the one thing that we have to get through the heads of the Canadian consumers, that what we are providing here in the western world is provided on the backs of primary producers, who need to make a living. It doesn't matter how or what, they need to make a living just as much as the Canadian auto worker in one of the CAW plants, who makes $35 an hour.
In my case, in dairy, we are calculated at $15 an hour maximum. I have to have skills. I have to have somewhat of an education to make sure that at the end of the year I can do my tabulation that says, yes, my farm was profitable. The guys at the plant just see the wheels rolling by and don't need any skills. All they need, in essence, is a little bit of training to apply this bolt.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Barry, your time has expired. Thank you very much.
Mr. Atamanenko.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you for being here.
I'm going to start out with a statement, and perhaps I can get some comments from some of you later. I'd like to specifically talk a bit about the potato industry.
Mr. Dykstra, you started off your presentation on a sort of pessimistic note, with lots of impatience.
And I'm sure, Paul, you've been doing this for years, and you know, we keep repeating these things.
I've been in this business for over a year and a half now, and we've just had hearings in all provinces of Canada, except the two biggest ones, Quebec and Ontario. I bet we've received enough information now to fix the system, even without going to Ontario or Quebec. Roughly the same ideas are going to come.
We have a tendency to say it's the bureaucrats, or why isn't it happening? I guess the country needs to have a vision, but we also need to have a will to put this vision forward. I'd like to submit that we have the information now, and somehow we need to get this moving, so that if I happen to be around next time the agriculture committee goes on tour, we won't be talking about the same thing; we'll be looking then at something different as to how we can advance this vision.
I'd like some comments on that. That's my statement for the morning. I don't usually do that.
Monsieur Gareau, I have a couple of questions on potatoes. Yesterday, Mr. MacIsaac, from the P.E.I. Potato Board, made some comments. Unfortunately, he left early and we didn't have a chance to pursue them. He said that in North America now there is some kind of memorandum of understanding and cooperation in regard to movement of potatoes. I'd like to get some idea of what's happening, because on the other hand, we're seeing, for example, here and in British Columbia, this dumping of Washington state apples. We're not having a lot of cooperation because of the sheer volume of American produce being dumped on our markets, because of those subsidies.
How is it that we can arrive at or be in the process of arriving at some kind of memo of understanding and cooperation that implies a free flow of potatoes across the border? Does this imply that we still have a chance to supply our own country with our potatoes? Could you give us some clarification on this?
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Potatoes New Brunswick
Yes, I'll talk about that a bit.
We've established two groups in Canada and the United States that are called United Potato Growers. It started with the U.S. group, United Potato Growers of America. United Potato Growers of Canada quickly followed them. We were established last year. We have every major potato grower in the area as a member. The U.S. has most of the major growing areas, but not all. We have a memo of understanding with them, and we work closely—weekly conference calls, for example. Mostly we want to try to find some order in the market. It was the whole idea of maybe bringing back some regulation, bringing the supply of potatoes in line with the demand.
We were forced to be where we are today because of the sorry state of affairs. It was basically the last man standing; everybody was undercutting everyone else. We've seen a drop in demand, for table potatoes especially. We don't see that same drop for processed potatoes, but the growers don't see the revenues from the value-added part. The united effort has been focused mostly on table potatoes, although we are working with all the process growers as well. There has been a new arm formed for seed potato growers. It's an exciting new group—two groups that have formed and are working closely together. We're just getting both groups staffed and running.
We're concerned because we see what's happening with the Canadian Wheat Board and the pressure on supply-managed commodities. And here we are in potatoes, trying to maybe become a more supply-managed commodity, recognizing that it's the only way we're going to survive.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'd like to pursue that. I have a potato grower in my riding in southern British Columbia. He mentioned that there has been a decrease in people producing potatoes because of NAFTA. We used to have in-season tariffs to not only protect potatoes growers.... W used to have over 2,000 onion growers; now we have half a dozen onion growers in British Columbia.
How can you do something like this when we have this big umbrella of NAFTA?
12:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Potatoes New Brunswick
How can we form these groups and do these memos? I think it's the only way our industry is going to survive. The B.C. representative from United Canada has been very active and very involved. We hope this will be the solution to these problems. We have already seen evidence of the closer collaboration with our counterparts in the U.S.
The potato world is small and we know all the players. But for once, in the last few years we're seeing a common goal of trying to work together to do a better job of sharing information, understanding what the markets are. We need a lot of work just to gather our information--knowing our supplies, knowing the movement of potatoes. I'm hoping this is where we're going to get to through these organizations. Even in the situation with the B.C. growers, I think they'll see some positives.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, Mr. Atamanenko. Your time has expired, unfortunately.
Mr. Easter.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, folks. Thank you for coming.
We started with hearings in Ottawa. We were in Penticton, B.C., last Monday, and we've moved across the country. There were quite a number of common themes. Certainly among them, but not limited to, is a product produced in other countries, using whatever herbicides, pesticides, different safety standards, etc., that we're not allowed to use, and it's imported into this country. This has to be addressed. The whole issue of disaster assistance needs to be fairly broad, and it may include issues as a result of trade as well in terms of that component.
There are a number of areas, but I'll go to a few specifics.
To the pork producers, in your presentations you mentioned your administrative costs and timeliness programs. I think you should know that in terms of administrative costs on the Agriculture Canada side, in the last two fiscal years the administrative costs alone for government programming were $481.9 million. If it's been spent on administration by Ottawa, it's not getting to you. It's budgeted for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, but you're not getting the money.
A big one is CAIS, which on average is $108 million a year. It's not the simplest of programs for anyone. Production insurance runs from $94 million one year to $98 million another year. I can see it in the production insurance, because you have to field people out there, etc. It's really for your information.
Justin, you mentioned something we haven't heard a lot about. I'd like to get on the record what you're really asking for, and maybe others can give their comments as well. You said they can ship products more cheaply here because they basically have a lower price due to their environmental standards and for other reasons.
It's always baffled me why we have international trade laws that do not take into consideration environmental standards on an equal level or close to a level footing and labour standards on an equal footing. I mean, we're not only losing industries in agriculture; we're losing the auto industry, we've already lost the garment industry, and the list goes on and on. You can go to any town in this country and see industries closing due to those two factors.
What's your view on that? As part of Canada's negotiating position, should we say environment and labour have to be part of the discussion and there has to be a level playing field in those areas as well?