Evidence of meeting #60 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 programs.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On your last point, Len, on the MAP-type program, you're absolutely right. We don't have anything in government, other than trade offices that promote agriculture a little bit.
Are you suggesting something like the old Canagrex, or something much smaller that is specific to the fruit industry?
President, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association
I think we should look at exactly what the Americans are offering to our retailers and duplicate that in our own market where necessary, because basically the Americans are coming in and sometimes offering $2 and $3 a box on produce as inducements for the major chains to buy. It comes in all forms; often they're buying the ads.
There are ways around this. All we have to do is look at what the Americans and doing and match it. Otherwise, we are losing that market. They're simply buying our own market right out from underneath us. I don't have the specifics of how it could be done, but I know they could be found out very easily.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, we can get that information fairly easily.
In some other areas, I want to try to get specifics on the record if I can. It's been said in many different ways, but I assume almost everyone here is speaking of the allowance under APF, which isn't currently allowed, of companion programs, MRP specifically in Ontario. There's basically general agreement on that, I gather.
I guess there were some differences. You raised a point. You're the only one who's ever raised it in all the hearings, Ian, the fact that you were somewhat dissatisfied with the savings account program. Maybe somebody from the government could tell us, because we're still waiting for a lot of details on the $1 billion that's been announced ten times, but it isn't to be the same as NISA, I don't believe, entirely. It is a savings account program, but you're the only one I've heard who has problems with it, so could you outline those for us? Think about that for a minute.
I do have to come back to the point Mr. Miller made in the earlier session--some of you were here--where he pointed out there's no connection about what's happening with the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management. There is a huge connection, because the implication of when you move to individual choice from collective choice is that in any industry--and a precedent has now been set in this country--if somebody wants to market outside that system, if they have a threshold of 13.8% support, then that industry can in fact be undermined.
That's the precedent, Larry, of the decision that was made in western Canada. It comes down to individual choice versus collective choice.
I'd like to come back to you, Ian. The other last point is on international trade negotiations. Should environment and labour be included in those negotiations, rather than the current stand?
President, Ontario Cattlemen's Association
On the recent announcement, we recognize that all the details haven't been worked out. We're going to be very interested in knowing exactly where the program is going once those details are worked out. But going to an entitlement program for the top tier or the stabilization tier of CAIS--which is the top 15% or the first 15% of your margin decline--is not going to mean a whole lot of money to any one producer across the country. Overall it's going to be a lot of money, but in throwing it across the country and giving everybody a little bit, I'm not sure what problems it's going to address.
It doesn't address need. It's entitlement, and I think government needs to be looking at programs that really address need. CAIS, despite its flaws, did try to address need across the whole farm picture. We recognize that and have recommended some changes to the CAIS program that need to be made in order to make it more effective and to better address need.
We are also concerned about this entitlement program. The beef industry is very dependent on trade. Depending on what our amber allowance is in the future, we are concerned that an entitlement payment could be going into that amber box. That amber box could get full pretty fast. That would create real problems for an industry like ours, which is very trade-dependent.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
Mr. Easter, your time has expired.
Monsieur Bellavance.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Good morning. Thank you for giving us your evidence. I was not present at the beginning of the trip to the west. One of my colleagues. Mr. Gaudet, represented the Bloc Québécois. Since the start of the trip to the east, we have once more just touched on rather than examined the question of animal health. Mr. McKillop, your presentation gave us an idea of the importance that the problems of animal health should be given.
In the present Agricultural Policy Framework, animal health is not dealt with. In your opinion, what policy should the government adopt in this area? What policy instruments should it put in place so that very specific objectives can be met? There have been major disasters, such as BSE and a pandemic that affected poultry in British Columbia. Even the province of our chair, Mr. Bezan, was affected.
When I was first named agriculture critic, we visited Manitoba to find out for ourselves about the bovine tuberculosis problem. We went into the field, and I like that. I feel that in a sense we are in the field at the moment, since we came to visit you. But in that case, we really went to the home of a farmer whose entire herd had had to be destroyed because of bovine tuberculosis.
It was interesting to see everything that had been done to improve the situation, but it was very touching and difficult for us as decision-makers to be so close to that kind of situation and those kinds of sights. We felt a little powerless. There was no disaster relief program at the time, but we hear about them today. Perhaps that is one of the positive sides of the problems that we have gone through.
Before I finish, I would like to talk about something that is very dear to me, regionalizing health zones. For example, when a problem affecting poultry appeared in the United States -- I think it was in Arkansas -- a very precise zone really was drawn so that there was no trade with Arkansas, but trade could go on elsewhere in the United States. My intention here is certainly not to target a province, because we must show solidarity with people living through disasters like that, but when we had our BSE crisis, the whole of Canada, from east to west, was penalized. As the Bloc Québécois has always advocated, we should perhaps have regionalized our zones to prevent the country as a whole being penalized. I went a long way around to get to that question, but I felt that it was important to mention those facts. You opened up a topic that interests me.
Mr. McKillop, Mr. Stewart, I would like to hear your comments on the matter.
President, Ontario Cattlemen's Association
Thank you.
I think one of the things that government needs to be looking at is supporting infrastructure, especially around zoning, a situation like what is currently being looked at between the border of Manitoba and Ontario, West Hawk Lake, which has been in the works for several years now. It is getting closer to being a reality, but there is going to have to be some type of ongoing funding in order to make that a reality long-term and to sustain it long-term. That is one area where government could play a role in supporting infrastructure being set up.
I would like to put on the record that Canada is seen as being a leader in animal health. Our regulatory system is second to none in the world, and that's viewed around the world as being one of Canada's greatest assets. And our top-notch regulatory environment is a tool that we will use in marketing beef around the world.
Going along with that there is the need for traceability, for example. We may have to expand our traceability program, even maybe take it right back to retail in terms of the sector that I represent. Again, there may need to be some support for us to do that, but I need to emphasize too that any traceability initiatives have to be based on the principles that we have adopted as an industry.
I think, as I mentioned, animal care is going to be much more of a focus in the years to come. There is increased pressure from animal welfare groups, and the regulatory approach to animal care in other parts of the world, especially Europe, is starting to be noticed in North America. So I think the government is going to have to have some mechanism in place, for example, to fund the development of codes of practice. Most commodities do have codes of practice. They have to be revised from time to time, and there is a fair bit of expense incurred in revising those codes. There does have to be government support, I think, to help with that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Bellavance, your time has expired.
Mr. Robertson, once again, very briefly please.
Coordinator, Ontario Region, National Farmers Union
It is not just zones during BSE. Our herd goes back three generations in our family and has always been either forage or farm-fed grain. Nobody asked me if they'd pay me a little bit more because of that during the BSE crisis. So there are a lot of issues.
We are going to have to get serious about the fact that there is another disaster coming. It is not a question of if, it is when and who, because as we globalize trade we are also globalizing the little nasties that go along with it: bacteria, viruses, and insects. It has hit lots of other industries. It is going to hit agriculture. So we are going to have to be prepared for that. We need a disaster relief program. Tomorrow is probably going to be too late, because we just don't know.
As we see the globalization, we are going to get things. Avian flu is not going to come here from a wild bird; it's going to come in on a plane. We are going to get some other nasty little bugger of a beetle come in on a crate from somewhere else. Who knows, it might eat through the wheat crop, the corn crop, or, God forbid, the soybean crop.
So we need to have that kind of programming in place, and we can't do it soon enough.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, thanks very much for coming here today.
I heard some really good points, and I just want to continue with what Grant just addressed.
Ian, you talked about a disaster program, and that is something we are committed to coming up with. What should be designated as a disaster? Should it be health issues like BSE and avian flu? Should it be dumping? We had the Manitoba flood three or four years ago, which was very severe. Should it be trade issues, low commodities? Think about that for a minute.
I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask of Brian and Len.
You talk about replanting. What would the total cost be to the federal government for the tree planting program you are talking about?
Brian, you talked about that, and also you mentioned about production being down dramatically in the last few years. What drove that production down? What is the key thing?
To you, Len, you brought up the issue of buy Canadian and what have you. As a farmer myself, I've always thought that we should be doing that. There are some reasons out there why we may not be able to, and they may make sense, but I think a lot of them are maybe just in our minds.
We have heard some discussion around the country about truth in labelling, country of origin. I would like to hear some comments from one or both of you on that.
There are the questions out there. Ian, I will throw it back to you to start off with the first one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Because there are three questions, please keep your responses as brief as possible.
President, Ontario Cattlemen's Association
Okay.
First of all, I think any type of disaster program has to have the flexibility that it could be regional. Whether it's a drought in Rainy River or just in several small areas of the country, it has to have the flexibility that it could respond in a timely fashion on very regional needs.
Certainly, common things like droughts and floods have to be covered, but also disease issues, like AI. BSE wasn't really a disease issue, but something like foot and mouth disease, if that ever came to Canada, has to be covered, and there is a list of foreign animal diseases that's well substantiated.
Also, I think it has to have the ability to respond to something like trade issues. When our borders are closed because of BSE and we see a severe loss of income, there has to be the flexibility that it could respond in a situation like that. It just have to have the overarching framework to cover everything. And quite likely we'll miss something, but if we can cover those four things, that's better than what we have now.
Vice-Chair, Ontario Apple Growers
The costs of the replant program over seven years to the federal government would be $100 million. That's the estimate.
Vice-Chair, Ontario Apple Growers
Over seven years. That's the national program. It's not a lot that we're asking for. Currently, Ontario growers are at an incredible disadvantage because everybody else has one but us. Anyway, that's the answer to your question.
The other one had to do with what drove production down. It's like a lot of things. It's sort of the death by a thousand cuts. In 1999 there was the largest crop of apples since the thirties in Ontario and in eastern North America. I grow fresh apples for grocery stores and consumption, processing apples for pies and sauce and those types of things, and juice. So although we're not diversified in a variety of crops, we're diversified in the types of apples that we grow.
Normally, it's rare that all three of those are in the dumper, but in 1999 the dumper didn't even describe where they were. It was a disaster. Then in 2002 there was no crop, and basically it comes down to cost of production going up like this and returns, if anything, being level or decreasing somewhat.
I grow a few Crispins or Mutsus, a nice green apple that tastes a lot better than a Granny Smith, which we call tree turnips, because you can roll them on the floor and they won't bruise. For those Crispins, in the 2002 crop year, I received $358 a bin. This past year, when Crispins were fewer on the marketplace, I received $208 a bin.
So it's a variety of things, yes, and it's the whole notion that it's an incredibly expensive venture to be involved in. Labour is 50% to 60% of our costs, and the cost of labour is going up, up, up.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Troup, just a quick response, because Mr. Miller's time has expired.
President, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association
On the “buy Canadian” thing, there's no reason not to do it. It requires political will. Somebody has to make a determination that this will be done and don't worry about NAFTA and all that nonsense. I said that before. Just go out and do it. Show a little backbone. Just do it. I know that's unheard of, but that's all it takes. Just do it. The Americans do it. They're proud and they help themselves from within.
I envy them the internal strength to just go and do something and not worry about it. That's all it would take. But if you wait for the buyers of institutions to do it on their own, they've probably been told to buy the cheapest. That's probably the only thing they've been told. Well, tell them to buy Canadian. Just tell them and make them do it. If they don't, get a new buyer. This isn't hard to do.
On the markings on product, “Canada No. 1”, things like that, they mean absolutely nothing. You go in the store and you look and it says something about Canada on there. It doesn't mean anything about country of origin. I understand the complications of going into country of origin, because things get mixed up in the process. It's not a simple thing to deal with, but it could sure be a whole lot better than it is. Even if you called it “packaged in Canada”, at least that has some truth to it.
Conservative
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'm going to do a quick question to Mr. Gilroy and Mr. Troup and then I'm going to move on with a comment and some questions for Grant, and then maybe we can pull this altogether.
The B.C. fruit growers had come out with a statement with regard to dumping from Washington State, initially saying they wanted a rapid response mechanism, not something that kicks in two months down the road, but tomorrow, if dumping happens today. They subsequently modified their proposal and they're looking at a minimum price. We should just have a minimum price in Canada, so that everybody competes on a level playing field. I'd like your comments on that in a few minutes.
Grant, I appreciate the frank comments. I understand the frustration you have, and I think all of us here share that with you, with regard to what happens in the process. We're looking at long-term projects. You were talking about realized net income. That's the key. Rather, we need to fix the short term, fixing CAIS and doing all that, but we have to look at the long-term, because you were saying--and we've heard this before--that it's the market power of consolidation we have to fight against. We are, as Mr. Troup said, competing with the U.S. treasury at the same time. We just heard a presentation on the railways before. We have this whole other issue.
You mentioned collective marketing and supply management are the key to helping us stand up in this current world we're facing. In Quebec yesterday, we had a presenter from the UPA, who said that really it boils down to what's more important, the right of the individual to do what he or she wants, or collective rights. In other words, if we allowed the individual to have this freedom of choice, and it erodes the collective right, is that what we really want in Canada? Does that fit in with our long-term strategy?
I'd like to submit that this is the debate on the Wheat Board. It's not some kind of ideological inter-party thing. That's what we're looking at. Do we have this right? Should we be protecting the collective good? That's the message we got in Quebec yesterday.
I've talked with farmers in northern Ontario, and many of them are envious of what's happening in Quebec. So I asked the question, is it because they have one voice in Quebec? You know, 96% of the farmers in Quebec belong to UPA voluntarily. You guys have three organizations in Ontario. Is that one of the reasons?
Then we have your other colleague, Karen Fyfe, who gave us the choice, the vision. Should we be looking at food security and the family farm and the collective good, or do we open up and become a supplier to the world of exports, through the WTO, and that's all we do?
That seems to be the key. We have to nail that right on the head. I'd like to get some comments on that, if we still have some time--maybe a couple of quick ones, and then move on to the other question.
Conservative