Agriculture Committee on April 25th, 2007

[Denis Bilodeau]

Our primary concern, which ought also to be that of the Department of Agriculture, is to ensure the sustainability of agricultural production. If a farming enterprise is viable and if, over the years, due to a solid economic performance, it can sustain food production, it may well be appropriate to start thinking about processing. However, moneys earmarked for developing agricultural production should not be used for developing processing infrastructure. To my mind, they are two different fields of endeavour. Agricultural production should take precedence over other areas of activity. If this is not clearly set out, industry, given the profits it stands to make by controlling commodity prices, might at times take advantage of the situation.

Statistics on the percentage of net income and income that farm enterprises get from market prices is in perpetual decline. We therefore get the impression that industry is not living up to its responsibilities either. If farm businesses want to be competitive and succeed on the export market, processing is another aspect we have to keep in mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

I will go straight to the crux of the matter, because we do not have much time available today. Throughout the course of this trip, by asking questions of producers in other Canadian regions, such as Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, I have had the opportunity to sound people out on the issues that you have each raised.

I did not go out West, but my colleague Roger Gaudet did. I am, therefore, aware that there have been differences of opinions on some matters. However, I can tell you that other producers, particularly in Eastern Canada, also raised the matter of their expectations with regard to programs flexibility. They do not want a single program to take precedence over others without any flexibility.

You all went through the consultations for the first Agricultural Policy Framework. Somebody from the UPA, somebody you know well, quipped that he had had enough "inputting" and that it was time for some outputting. Obviously, I would not be here if I did not believe consultations to be important, but I agree that we need to see results.

You went through the first Agricultural Policy Framework discussions. There were endless consultations. However, the report that I got from producers was that your voices had not been heard. The framework gave rise to the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program. People on the ground said it would not work. They were right, and so here we are consulting again.

In what way do you expect this consultation to be different? We are consulting left, right and centre. The committee is holding consultations, but so too is the government.

Mr. Bilodeau, you were probably in Saint-Hyacinthe or Quebec when the government undertook its consultations for the Agricultural Policy Framework. I know that the Senate committee has also travelled. I do not know if they are specifically addressing the matter we are discussing today.

What are you expecting from these consultations? Do you have any hope left? Are you going to be angry if your voices are not heeded?

[Denis Bilodeau]

I take it that is not an invitation!

We appreciate that Canada is a huge country and one that has diverse agricultural sectors and diverse production frameworks.

In Quebec, we have a history of favouring supply management. This means that we operate within a defined framework. As a general rule, supply-managed sectors outperform the others.

However, some sectors face greater onus on export commodities—and that is fine. Nonetheless, it is a distinction that the Canadian government must recognize. If the government wants to unite all Canadian producers, that is something that has to be done.

We are back here before you today with another presentation. We have probably aged a few years since we last saw you, but our problems remain essentially unchanged. We had reservations. When we appeared before the committee during the first consultations, there was much talk of meeting our needs. There was a lot of talk about targeted programming. I have to say, however, that we were bitterly disappointed when, after having analyzed and unpecked the programs, we realized that such an approach would take us where we have ended up today. We saw it coming. Although we are happy to address the matter again today, it has to be noted, as William also pointed out, that since then Canadian and Quebec agricultural enterprise owners have seen their economic plight worsen and their debt increase. Although it pains me to say so, it was the end of the farmer that I once was.

Even when prices improve, we will still be burdened by the debt that we have built up over the past few years. Competitively speaking, we will not be on an equal footing on the export markets, among others, before we rid ourselves of the baggage that has built up over the past few years.

That is why, Mr. Bellavance, the focus must be on the issues and needs raised by the regions and provinces. We accept the importance of working within the parameters of the Canadian approach. What we are looking for is adaptability, complementarity and flexibility.

We greatly appreciate the financial support provided by the Canadian government. it is important to ensure that this money will be earmarked for addressing specific needs in order to improve the situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Van Tassel, be very, very short.

[William Van Tassel]

We are here for the producers. We sometimes have the impression that we are not being listened to, but we have no choice: we represent producers, who are in dire need of help. We have to be eternal optimists. Our aim is to make sure that, in these stage two consultations starting in 2008, farmers' demands will be heard.

Canada is a big country, and I know that this is why people talk about flexibility. The needs of eastern producers can be quite different from those of western producers.

We are here for our producers, that's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

A very quick answer, please.

[Richard Petit]

The next agricultural policy needs to be developed in conjunction with the farm organizations. If that had been done the first time, the policy would meet producers' needs. We have an opportunity now to get it right, and we need to seize it because this policy will be in effect for five years.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Devolin, it's your turn.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Those were really long for two words. I need to learn to do that, so that if I don't look at the chair, I will get to keep talking.

Mr. Van Tassel, I have a couple of questions for you. I want to talk about the risk management program. I know we talked about this before, but I want to get it on the record here today in this context, in talking about the APF 2.

What has been the response from the Ontario government and the Quebec government in terms of the risk management program? Where are you at with the provincial governments?

[William Van Tassel]

In Quebec, we already have a risk management program, our ASRA program. It's a little bit like the RMP, or risk management program, being proposed for Ontario. We've had it since about the middle of the seventies; it was delivered in 1975.

Historically in Quebec, we were getting money from the federal government to help out in times of crisis, which there really isn't right now. Also, I believe ex-minister Vallières talked about it at the last ministers meeting—last week, I believe it was.

In Ontario, the Ontario coalition is working very hard with the provincial government to have an RMP. I don't want to forecast things, but we hope to have an announcement about it later on during the summertime.

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

Okay.

When the presentation was made, it was said more as if you had a proposal to the government in Ontario for an RMP.

[William Van Tassel]

There's a proposal for the RMP, yes.

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

I have a general question for any or all of you, if you want to respond.

This is my third day of hearings; I wasn't out in western Canada with the committee last week. We've heard many consistent themes. At each meeting we hear a few different or unique ideas, but the themes are consistent, and we hear a lot of broad statements on principles.

My question is, given that the government is going to rewrite the APF, is there one thing you would like to see in it? If you can be specific, is there some particular or specific thing that's doable that you would actually like to see in the new document?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Van Tassel.

[William Van Tassel]

Yes, the one thing would be flexibility. Flexibility so that we'd be able to go to where the needs are in each region. That is what one part should be.

Also, we would like to see that our needs, what we asked for, are in it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Anybody else?

[Denis Bilodeau]

Yes, but in order for the money that the government invests in agriculture to be spent properly, it needs to be spent in line with other priorities as well. I can tell you that the need to adapt to federal programs has meant that years have been practically wasted because of the energy and money spent in tweaking some of the programs so that producers could receive money. But the objectives were the same.

I remember certain situations, including the one with the farm business advisory services. Quebec has worked very hard in the farm management area to put systems in place that work well. The intention behind the federal farm assessment program was good but for some producers it created duplication. There was no added value as a result of the funding. If the program had complemented what Quebec was already doing, the results would have been different.

Regarding the Canadian Farm Families Options Program, I have to say that we received the news yesterday. It is quite different from what we had in mind. We want producers to be able to earn a farm income separate from their family income. We do not want government, through their agricultural departments, to get involved in family income; they should stick to the farm side. We want farms to be viable and profitable through their production. The family income will then follow.

These are substantial amounts of money, after all. It was announced yesterday that the money would no longer be available or the criteria would be stricter for new businesses. Richard mentioned earlier that there needs to be a more concerted approach and more sharing in order to identify needs and policies. We agree that there is a need for this kind of Pan-Canadian approach, but we want the federal and provincial funding efforts to complement each other. William talked about flexibility, and that is really what people are looking for and demanding. The rest will follow.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Good afternoon and thank you for being here.

As we travel around, we regularly hear that there should be a program for disaster relief and it should address needs right away. It would exist independently of the other programs and would apply in the case of natural and semi-natural disasters.

Do you think it would be a good idea to establish a program like that, with pre-defined criteria and the flexibility you have just mentioned? It would kick in right after a disaster. During my short career, I have seen some situations, including flooding in Saskatchewan. In those kinds of cases, the federal and provincial governments cannot come to an agreement, and farmers wait. A decision is finally made and that happens somewhere else.

Do you think that establishing a program of that kind should be our priority?

[Denis Bilodeau]

Yes. It has been difficult to get help this past year to producers who have been dealing with the nematode and have been threatened with bankruptcy. The current program involves mandatory reporting. That is a great thing and it came up when we had the BSE problem. It is certainly a good idea to confine the problem to the affected region, so that it does not spread to all of Canada. For that to happen, however, we need programs that provide adequate compensation to producers who may be marginalized and blamed, and the assistance needs to be targeted. The government had a good understanding of the problem we were dealing with last year. Producers had to be assisted and supported. In some case, the CAIS program seemed to be effective, but in other cases producers received only 60% compensation, which makes no sense.

When we had the hog crisis in Quebec, there were pre-defined mortality rates under the programs. But in a crisis situation, when there is disease or an epidemic, the program does not apply. Extra funding is needed to deal with those situations. Other programs need to be created to deal on an ad hoc basis with specific situations and specific needs.

The same thing can be done for grain producers. That type of program used to exist outside the income security mechanisms, and it applied in disaster situations to meet specific needs.

[William Van Tassel]

It depends on the disaster. My view on this is a bit different from that of my UPA colleague.

For grain producers, crop insurance generally applies when there is a one-time problem that lasts for a year. It sometimes applies in disaster situations. But does the fact that grain prices are low for a long period of time not constitute a disaster? There needs to be a definition of what constitutes a disaster. That is why I talked about a disaster program. We need a bit broader definition. Low grain prices for an extended period also amount to a disaster.

[Denis Bilodeau]

A disaster—

[William Van Tassel]

That is what causes a disaster.

[Richard Petit]

Our organization favours the creation of a disaster relief program. The current discussions on CAIS would have CAIS apply first, with all its flaws, and then a disaster relief program. Things can't work that way.

Mr. Bilodeau gave the example of potato producers and horticultural producers. They have to destroy their crops when there is no compensation program for them. They are told to wait to see what CAIS will do, and then they will get help for the clean up, etc. The first thing producers need is to have their earnings restored to the level they would be if the disaster had never happened, and then they can access the regular programs. If the farm income has not gone down, CAIS will not kick in.

Producers are not looking for double compensation, but we want our losses to be covered in the order in which they were incurred. The disaster-related losses need to be addressed first and then CAIS can be applied to the farm income. Otherwise, we will see the same problems as with CAIS. Producers with other sources of income will have to destroy their potatoes, but the other income will be used to cover the lost crop. That does not make sense. Other producers will receive compensation for their potatoes. The disaster needs to be dealt with first and then the regular programs can be used.