Agriculture Committee on May 15th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bellavance's time has expired, so give a quick response please, Mr. Minister.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

The discussions are ongoing. We will look at it. The concern is whether the government is in the business of insuring loss of business. I guess if we need to develop a program along those lines we'll have to start to work out parameters. We'll certainly do that in conjunction with industry. It would have to be an insurance-type of situation, and we'll have a look at it.

There is insurance for that type of thing in the private sector already. I'm not sure we want to step on any toes, but if we can better the overall working relationship with producers, we'll continue those discussions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Lauzon.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for coming, Mr. Minister.

I want to begin by thanking my colleague for the wonderful compliment he gave me, comparing me to you, Minister, and that we put farmers first. I appreciate that comment sincerely, and let's hope we continue to put farmers first.

Mr. Minister, as you know, I represent a riding that has a high concentration of supply management. You visited, I believe, six weeks ago or so, and at the risk of having you blush, obviously the way you're consulting with farmers works. If you recall, the three standing ovations that you had among 250 people indicated that we're on the right page when it comes to looking after farmers, certainly in eastern Ontario.

I want to get your comments. Supply management, as I said, is so critical to my riding and to many ridings across Canada, and I think we should talk about it. The opposition has a way, it seems, of putting out some insecurity to the supply managed people. I want to go on record and I want you, if you don't mind, to come on record and explain.

I have a letter here from the five chairs of the supply managed groups. It is dated in Ottawa. It was written on February 14. Part of the letter says: Over the past two years, the federal government, and in particular, the Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, have repeatedly affirmed the government's strong commitment to stand up for supply management and to defend and deliver on the Canadian position at the WTO negotiations on agriculture.

It goes on to say a number of other things.

Mr. Minister, I would like you to reiterate to this opposition and to the public at large where we stand. We have put it in the throne speech; thePrime Minister, the minister, is on record as fully supporting supply management.

Would you once again please tell the opposition and the Canadian public where we stand on supply management?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I guess one of the great things of this job, Mr. Lauzon, is constantly being able to go out on the world stage and point to the success stories in Canadian agriculture. Of course, supply management is a glowing example of what works. I'm always amazed at how the opposition parties can play silly bugger at times with that analogy.

Jacques Laforge and I had the opportunity to fly out to a farm forum in New Brunswick about three weeks or a month ago. In the couple of hours of flying that it took, Jacques was telling me how he now says at public forums that it's a given that all four parties in the federal House support supply management. But he said, “I always make the point that it's the Conservative government that defends it.” There's a subtle difference there. He is quite vocal about that. I've really enjoyed the working relationship I've had with the industry. They're drawing their support from the marketplace. I look at that, and I know a lot of other industries look at that with some envy that they are able to do that. They have a top-quality product.

I guess it shows in that in the offshore missions that I've undertaken in the last six to seven months, everywhere we go there's a growing and increasing demand for our dairy genetics, for our poultry genetics, for those types of things. People around the world are saying, “You have an industry that has been sustainable to the point that they've been able to take that cash flow and build a better industry.” I guess if you look at the secondary industry that has developed around our supply managed system here, it speaks to the continuity and consistency of that quality supply.

So it's always an opportunity to go out there on the world stage, and domestically too. We forget to talk about our successes. We get mired down in the media headlines of what's not working and we forget to talk about what is. It's always a pleasure to reiterate our solid, unconditional support for supply management.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much.

Another part of your agenda to put farmers first is opening up new markets for Canadian produce. I know you've worked extremely hard on that. I wonder if you could just elaborate a bit on what kind of success you're having.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It is not hard to go out and sell a quality product. Canadian farm produce is second to none in the world, and we're adapting to new and innovative ways.

Mr. Easter made the point that the soft fruit industry is changing. He's absolutely right, but producers are driving that change. They're taking out their peach orchards and putting in vineyards for grapes because there's better money in vines and making wine. That's up to them. They have to turn a profit on that land. We're seeing property taxes climb. We're seeing input costs climb, so producers have to make those changes.

The worst thing we can do as a government is develop and come out with programs that mask market signals, the status quo, ad hoc types of programming. What happens with that is you end up maintaining the status quo, which oftentimes doesn't let the market send a signal through to the producer to make that change. We've seen that over the years.

Everything in this country at the processing level was developed on a low dollar and on the strength and quality of the Canadian product. We still have the strength and quality of the Canadian product and now we have to get out and do it in a more productive way because the dollar has come back to where it probably should be historically. It might be a little high but it's where it is, and producers are struggling with that on input costs and so forth.

At the end of the day the strong survive, the market will right itself, and producers will continue to forge ahead and give us that quality product that they do so well.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Atamanenko, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, and thanks to you, Minister, and your officials for being here today. I will try to be brief in my questions and hopefully give you a chance to respond, perhaps in the order that I ask them.

First I'd like to follow up on what Wayne mentioned in regard to the press release about the Grain Commission. It's a disturbing press release, and I'd like some comment from you on this. According to the press release, the Grain Commission producer protection programs will be slashed by 67%, while grain quality programs will be reduced by almost half and research programs will be cut by 60%.

There are three former commissioners who have statements in this release.

One says that “As Ottawa's contribution goes down, producer costs will rise.” I find that extremely disturbing and I'd like some comments on that.

The other one is that, “These cuts will undermine grain producers in their dealings with grain companies, which have never been more powerful. Canada's reputation for top quality grain will be hurt too. You can't protect producers and make these cuts at the same time.” This is former commissioner Bob Douglas.

The last quotation I have here is by Ms. Donna Welke: “At a time when food safety is a top priority for Canadians, Bill C-39 is undermining the safety of Canadian grain products.”

I'd like a comment on those statements, please.

Minister, you mentioned COOL and how we oppose this. I'm just wondering how realistic it is to go to a panel. Do we have some very specific concrete measures as to how to oppose COOL, and does this fit in with shifting our focus to not always trying to conform to trade obligations, but maybe to shift to really put Canada first and make sure we stand up and put in the right measures to protect our producers?

That also goes in line with the tree fruit industry, as you mentioned. You're saying the market will just regulate it. We're producing grapes; the logical result is that eventually we'll be a nation of grape producers and we won't have any more apples, for example. Is that a realistic goal for Canada, or should there be some government intervention to ensure that we have a safe supply of apples and peaches and all the other fruit we're noted for? That's the second one.

I will probably need you to get back to me on my last question. Can you provide the committee with a breakdown of federal grants and contributions by province for the following programs: Greencover, the environmental farm plan, the farm stewardship program, and the Canada-Ontario water supply expansion program for the fiscal years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08? I have it here if you need it.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Alex. We'll get you those numbers. It's not a problem. Some of the programs didn't exist in some of those years, but we'll give you what we've got.

I'm trying to go in the order you gave them to me.

The CGC is a modernization situation. It hasn't been done for decades. I would categorize that press release as mischievous, at best. It doesn't give you the full picture. I would like to think that the CGC actually delivers for producers. Producer groups are excited and thrilled about the changes that are proposed--barring one, I guess. Having said that, the vast majority of producers in western Canada, and across Ontario, where there's a bit of overview from the CGC, are asking for these changes. They've wanted them for quite some time.

As to the funding, we're talking about the main estimates only with that. Historically the funding for the CGC has been done through the supplementaries as the programs are outlined and we see what kind of market reaction there is, how much test we need and so forth. And that will continue to be that way.

When it comes to producers' costs being driven up, I don't understand how that will happen. The biggest change from a controversial standpoint--again producers are saying this is great--is the whole idea that somehow everyone you deliver product to is insured to the point to cover you off; you know, should they not be able to carry forward they go into a bankruptcy.

Historically we've seen that program deliver pennies on the dollar. It's a false sense of security to producers that Joe Blow's grain supply can pay for the product they bought from you today when they go bankrupt tomorrow or last month or whatever. There's no way to track. Grain commodities are very flexible and very movable. One week they'll do 500,000 tonnes of wheat, and the next week none. So you catch them on the week when they...and their bond doesn't cover that expansion and contraction in a fulsome enough way. I'm not sure how you would regulate that. There are instances in the private sector that do a better job of tracking that than government has. I guess that's what we're trying to encapsulate here.

Of course, any bill that comes before the House will come to this committee, and amendments are possible. If you see there's a better way--a better way to build a better mousetrap--and producers decide that's the way they want to go, then that's what we'll put into the bill. It is a work-in-process.

I know you had Elwin Hermanson, the chief commissioner, here on Tuesday, and some of these questions were asked of him. I think he gave great answers, in the responses I saw when I took a quick look at the transcripts. Certainly we're moving forward, with farmers in control of the Grain Commission working in the best interests of producers. That's as succinct as I can be.

On COOL, we're ramping up our responses to that. The vote was finally taken yesterday. The possibility of a presidential veto is no longer on the table. With any vote that surpasses the two-thirds majority mark, the veto is then off the table and not in play. The vote was almost 75% in favour of moving forward with the Farm Bill.

The devil is in the details. I've had these discussions with the last two secretaries of agriculture and, to a short extent, Mike Johanns, when he was there. We have let them know in no uncertain terms that if this thickens the border in any way at all.... We have already seen contracts, on weanling pigs out of Manitoba, that have been reneged on because the buyer on the American side isn't sure what kind of label he's going to have to put on that product.

There's so much product that is born on one side of the line, fed on another side, and processed back again. Whose is it? If you had to have a passport for these cattle, or hogs for that matter, going back and forth, it would be stamped quite a few times.

I was in Washington some time ago, and the American industry itself isn't for this either. They're saying it will take four to five different labels to cover off what they think may be coming in COOL. They want no part of it. The government side assures me that this will go through, but they have no way to enforce it. The problem is that it creates the frustration and angst on this side. How do we deliver it?

That's the nature of a NAFTA panel. It is going to distort the marketplace from the Canadian side in a negative way, as we grapple with how we label this product that goes back and forth. I think part of the answer is in our own labelling systems, where we get a better idea on “Product of Canada”. We're working hard on that one.

I know my time is up

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Actually, it was Mr. Atamanenko's time that was up.

I'm going to get a little more sticky on time.

Mr. St. Amand, you have the floor.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have one question, then I'll pass it off to Mr. Boshcoff.

Mr. Minister, I want to thank you and your officials for coming.

On ethanol, quite apart from the escalation in the price of corn triggered by ethanol, I understand there is a growing science about health risks associated with ethanol. Particularly, there are some studies in the United Kingdom that show an alarming rate of cancer in communities in and around ethanol plants. Is there anything to that, or am I reading this incorrectly?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I haven't seen the studies and I'm not sure of their validity. This is news to me, and we'll certainly check them out and have a look at them. I've never heard of that.

I can't understand why there would be any more instances of cancer near an ethanol facility than a coal mine, or something like that, where there is actual particulate matter in the air.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

The studies are from the United Kingdom, particularly, so I'll just steer you to them.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

We'll search them out, Lloyd, and have a look at them. I'd be shocked. I'd have to look at the medical validity of them, but we will do that.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Fair enough.

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, no one denies the fact that the Canada Grain Act needed some modernizing and updating. So when this committee prepared its report, it was based on compromises that were quite yielding between the four parties, including your own. The bill that's been proposed bears little resemblance to what we had agreed upon in these chambers, in the spirit of compromise, for agriculture and its producers and the way they are served.

So why would you show us so little respect by so dramatically changing what we hoped would be the new act, after all those hearings and many months of meetings?

The second question is in terms of disaster programs. Your latest set of correspondence shows that it would be the province that would declare the disaster, and then maybe the feds would come in. I'm questioning why you wouldn't just act unilaterally for southwest Saskatchewan and northwestern Ontario, knowing there is such a need, and a continuing one. Why wouldn't you just help federally and perhaps even embarrass those two provinces into coming to the table?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Let me start with the first question and the CGC.

I'm a little shocked you feel there's little resemblance with what we heard in this committee, and from the producers and so on. If you could point to some examples where you think we've deviated from exactly what the majority of producers or majority of people were asking for, I'd be happy to address them or take a look at them.

As I said, the bill will come before this committee, and if there are amendments that come forward, so be it. We'll try to get the bill to you as quickly as we can.

I certainly don't think we're off the mark. Other than for one farm group, I haven't had anyone with any amount of negativity about this, other than for their saying hurry up and get it done. So I'd be happy to take your examples and work with them.

On the disaster situation and the two instances you talked about, we are addressing some of that in southwest Saskatchewan, working with the new Saskatchewan provincial government in partnership. As you know, all of those programs are a 60-40 split, and we try to work in conjunction with them, if at all possible.

There have been a few instances—the plum pox virus comes to mind—where we actually went ahead at the federal level, because the province wasn't coming on board. That program was offered to a couple of different provinces. Some provinces came on board and some didn't. And we went ahead and announced.

The only thing stopping us is that we're in the final negotiations on Growing Forward and the final suite of programming, getting down to the details on such things as, if a disaster expands, does the federal government's level go up, and to what extent? So we're a little bit apprehensive about stomping on toes when we're into those final negotiations.

I would hope that your provincial colleagues would come to the table. We're more than ready to be there, but I don't want to bruise any egos in these final days of negotiations on the overall program.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

The time has expired.

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

At the beginning or outset here, I'm a little surprised by Mr. Boshcoff and wonder whether he could table the examples of the differences he had in mind at the end of the committee for members. We had Ian White and Elwin Hermanson here at the last meeting, who both assured us they had no problems with Bill C-39 or with the implementation of KVDs.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that's not quite true.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

This isn't going to take away from my time, is it, Wayne?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It will not take from your time, but your assessment of that is not quite accurate. Go to the minutes, where there are some concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You guys are debating, and this isn't a point of order.