Evidence of meeting #61 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 ontario.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
Just as a point of interest, in the high school where my girls go to school, they've banned the pop machines and put all juices and milk in there, and there are no more candy bars in the cafeteria. For a couple of bucks they can have a nice big fresh salad and a bowl of soup every day, and that's what our kids like to do. And it looks pretty good.
Mr. Hubbard, you're on.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have a lot of experience around the table. I just said to Mr. Easter a few minutes ago, looking at the presentations, that I'm not sure how we're going to describe them.
If we go back, free trade was a big thing that happened here in the late 1980s. Was there ever a better time for agriculture than there is right now? If there was, when was it?
The second question I have is whether we have too many programs. In terms of your industry, how much time do you as a farmer spend answering programs? If you put that time into dollars, is it productive for you? Somebody already said that, frankly, most of the profits made in agriculture in Canada come from one level of government or another; they're not made from sales.
I have just those two questions, Mr. Chair. I'd like to know if there was a time. I think 1983 was a good year. We were all happy then. Was it 1976? It seems as though free trade has been a big part of all the hearings we've had. The WTO and the old GATT, which was before the WTO, seem to have really put a tremendous burden on the future of Canadian agriculture.
Arthur.
Conservative
President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
George Brinkman's numbers will support that 1971, 1972, and 1973 were the best years Canadian agriculture ever had, the days when you could buy an acre of land for a tonne of corn. The reality we're in today is a different reality. We're struggling to put together the tools we need to make the most of the challenges and the opportunities in the marketplace today.
President, Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition
Yes, Geri addressed when the good times were. This could be a good time, right now. There are a lot of opportunities, but there are many things distorting the opportunities. The U.S. Farm Bill is one thing that is taking some of those opportunities away.
Secondly, you ask if there are too many programs. There are only two programs: CAIS and production insurance. All of the other programs are ad hoc programs. You go back through the time since those two programs came in, and there have probably been two hands' worth of programs, but they've all been ad hoc programs.
There are two programs right now, but what that's telling you is that those programs really aren't addressing the need, and you maybe need a few more permanent programs in place that are predictable and bankable rather than this hodgepodge of ad hoc programs that aren't addressing the need.
Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association
Geri's comment said 1971 to 1973, and I was going to say the early seventies—not that I'm so old as to remember it, but I hear that. But the seventies were good.
It wasn't just trade, either. I mentioned earlier global trading. You didn't worry, if it was grain production in Brazil or whatever, about the subsidization. I became involved in the grape industry in the early 1980s. That was the first time I'd ever heard about subsidies. It was happening in Europe, and happening to a large degree in the wine industry. It had a very negative impact on the farmers here in this country.
The logistics of transporting fruit or vegetables has changed. When I was a kid, when I was in university, proximity to market meant everything. Today it doesn't. We need to find something else to replace that, and that's where differentiation comes in.
The seventies were good years.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
I only want, Mr. Chair, to thank the witnesses very much. It certainly has been a great experience. I've travelled all across the country. Some of us have been here twice now with different committees.
I know the chair will certainly be working with the researchers. What you get from our work is not what will be done, but rather what we as parliamentarians will present to Parliament. Then you have to deal with the bureaucrats, and quite often they're there longer than we are. Hopefully they will take our suggestions, but there's no guarantee that they're going to do as we say or do as we think they should do.
Thank you very much.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We'll definitely make our recommendations to the House of Commons and let government consider them in the APF deliberations.
I have a couple of questions.
A couple of times today it's come out that nobody wants ad hoc payments; you guys don't like ad hoc programs. I'm a cattle producer, and I know that during the BSE crisis some of those ad hoc payments came in a timely manner and in a much-needed manner.
In some of what we heard this morning it was said that CAIS doesn't address the need and that CAIS and all the other hodge-podge programs that are out there, which are pretty much permanent types of programs, don't flow in a timely manner, maybe with the exception of production insurance.
I know from historical fact that when there have been droughts and there have been acreage payments, they got out to the farmers quickly. They addressed the need that was out there and were delivered very efficiently. Not a lot of administration eats up those ad hoc programs, so I'm wondering why there is such a dislike for ad hoc programs that can be delivered in such a timely manner.
I'll ask Mr. Smith, then Mr. Tuinema, and then Mr. Mountjoy.
Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association
I hope you didn't misconstrue any of my comments as saying we don't like ad hoc programs. Good bankable programs are very important. But what we have done in the last 15 to 20 years in this country is concentrate on safety net programs, and we have missed, in my opinion, a bigger mark, which is the marketplace. How do we derive more dollars out of the marketplace? That's where we need to focus more attention.
Ad hoc programs will always be an essential part of it. Safety net programs will always be an essential part, because there will be times when the market falls out and you're going to need them. At the same time, we need to focus on where we can get our money--not from the taxpayer but from the market.
President, Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition
I commented earlier that there are two national programs now. There's a third one being proposed by the federal government to address disasters. That program's being set up to deal with things like BSE or natural occurrences that really are disasters. In other words, producers are going to have the comfort that if they get to that situation, there's going to be probably even a better mechanism than the ad hoc dollars that came out under the BSE crisis.
None of those three programs is going to deal with regional differences. Everybody has talked about the diversity of the country, how many different products there are, and how even regions with the same products are very different. We really need that extra level, which is dollars that have regional flexibility so that we can adapt to some of those things—not ad hoc, but in place so that we can adapt to grain prices in Ontario or some kind of issue in eastern or western Canada.
President, Ontario Corn Producers' Association
Peter covered a bit of it, but the comment I wanted to make is, yes, the ad hoc program in the beef industry was very helpful in that time of disaster. If the new disaster component program covers that sort of thing, that's great.
When you have to have, as Peter mentioned a couple of questions ago, several ad hoc programs in a row to cover an income crisis, then it's time for a permanent program.
President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, no one on the panel this afternoon said we didn't want ad hoc programs. We said we want long-term programs that bring predictability to an industry that in Canada is carrying in excess of $46 billion of debt and in Ontario employs 755,000 people.
Ad hoc is what we have lived on. Every cent of it has been targeted and been much appreciated. But we're saying that when you look at the dynamics of that industry provincially and nationally and recognize how many people's livelihoods depend on a stable agricultural sector, we need to do better and we need to commit ourselves to predictable, bankable, long-term agricultural business risk management tools.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The interesting thing we heard here in committee back in Ottawa when we had the Canadian Bankers Association in is that they said they were going to continue to stand by our farmers because they know the government is going to continue to prop the farmers up. And I'm one of those farmers. So I guess we can say that all farm programs are bankable, because the bankers are saying that as long as the government is going to be putting money in, it's a bankable program because they're going to be providing credit.
President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think everybody--and I'm sure you heard this at all of your committee hearings--knows the problem in our industry is that there are a lot of people with a lot of grey hair, and it's not us we have to worry about. You need to bring predictability into that next generation as they are doing these leveraged buyouts, because ultimately you and I would like to retire at some point. We need to withdraw some equity out of the business. They're going to be carrying a greater level of debt than we did.
And as much as our bankers have developed a relationship with us over the last quarter century, they do not have a relationship with my kids or your kids, and there needs to be predictability in order to build that relationship. That's what we're suggesting.
If I may, I heard this the other day, and it's applicable to agriculture. It would be one hell of a legacy to leave to the future if at some point we found ourselves being dependent on imports because we were too cheap to do the right thing here and now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Davis, we were talking about alternative revenue streams for farmers and making sure that we get paid for the environmental good, the public good--the stewardship services that we provide. Have you heard of the ALUS program, the alternative land use services, that is being promoted out on the Prairies and even in the Maritimes now? I believe it has been talked about here in Ontario as well.
Farmer, As an Individual
Yes, I'm familiar with it. There is a program they're trying to get started in Norfolk county here in Ontario.
It's a good program. It takes money from the organizations that the public supports and puts money into those programs, and then those programs basically come back and say to farmers, we'll support you to maybe not farm, and do this on this land over here and maybe not farm. That's okay if we don't need food and products in Ontario.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I don't think they're saying not to farm it. If you're in a watershed, for example, putting in more buffer zones, pulse grazing--things like that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Maybe not entirely, but definitely a reduction. It might not be cultivated. It might go into livestock or something like that.