Evidence of meeting #5 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was money.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I call this meeting to order. We're going to continue on with our study on the Growing Forward policy.
Welcome to the table. From the National Farmers Union, we have Colleen Ross, women's president; and Kalissa Regier, youth vice-president. Welcome to both of you. We've had Colleen here before.
Monsieur Bellavance.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Excuse me for interrupting you, Mr. Chairman.
We were supposed to receive the Minister today. I would like to know what happened. Why did he not come? Will he be coming soon? It cannot be next week, because he has been invited to the Union des producteurs agricoles conference, I think. I would not want him to miss the conference under the excuse that he has to be here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Unfortunately the minister wasn't available today, and he's not available next week, as you pointed out. They have committed to December 10, I believe.
I don't know, Guy, if you have any extra information, but that's what the clerk--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We have December 10 available. If push comes to shove and the minister does want to appear, we may—because his Mondays and Wednesdays are fairly busy, from what I understand—have to do a Tuesday meeting to get the minister. We'll add that meeting if need be. We actually had hoped for today that if we couldn't get the minister, we'd get the officials in from Ag Canada, but they are in Montreal talking about the crisis in livestock industry right now.
I think we have them booked next Wednesday, right?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We will have the officials from Ag Canada. So fortunately, on very short notice, we asked the general farm organizations to come in, and CFA and a few were able to make it. UPA was invited as well. Unfortunately they weren't available for today. We'll try to add them later on. We had to kind of roll with the punches, Mr. Bellavance. Okay?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
To continue on with our introductions, we also have--no stranger to the committee--Bob Friesen, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Welcome, all of you. I remind everyone that we'll kick it off with ten-minute opening comments.
I believe, Ms. Ross, that you will be splitting your time with Ms. Regier. So with that, I'll turn it over to you.
Colleen Ross Women's President, National Farmers Union
I believe I'm going to go first, and then Kalissa and then Bob.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to come before you today, ladies and gentlemen. We didn't find out until Monday night when we were driving down Highway 401 on the way home from our 38th annual convention of the National Farmers Union in London that we were requested to appear. It just so happened that Kalissa came home with me. So rather than have a couple of days off, here we are. But it is a pleasure, and we thank you very much for this opportunity.
We represent the National Farmers Union of Canada. We're both on the national executive and on the board of the National Farmers Union.
I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my local member of Parliament, Guy Lauzon. I live and farm in the area of Iroquois, Ontario. Mr. Lauzon has visited my community, and he has also attended my church.
I'd like to acknowledge Mr. Lauzon. Thank you.
In focusing on Growing Forward, which seems to be the topic of the study today, I'm going to give an overview, and Kalissa is going to talk about her vision for agriculture.
Over the past 10 years, there have been numerous studies, submissions, recommendations, and proposals, which many of us around the table are very familiar with, that focus on the ongoing demise of the farming sector in Canadian society. The 2007 release from Statistics Canada on the agricultural sector shows there is an ongoing crisis in rural Canada. The loss of farms and farmers, the ever-aging demographics, and the average net income, well below Canada's national average, point to what can only be considered an incurable cancer in the countryside.
Whereas Growing Forward recommends some progressive steps in addressing issues of concern to farmers and consumers, many of the principles and policies actually lack meaningful or truly progressive and informed rationale. I've been involved in several of the consultations over the past several years, right from Lyle Vanclief through to the more recent consultations. I've travelled right across Canada to be involved in these consultations.
The competitive success that is referred to several times in Growing Forward has not brought financial success to the vast majority of farmers across Canada. We have indeed been competitive. According to Agriculture and Agri-food's own data, agriculture has been responsible for over $15.4 billion in export in the first half of this year alone, yet the majority of farmers will show a net loss, or at least a significantly low on-farm income, again this year.
Policy outcomes in Growing Forward embrace a competitive and innovative sector, a sector that contributes to society's priorities, and a sector that is proactive in managing risks. These can be achieved only when profitability on the farm is addressed once and for all without further enhancing the culture of never-ending dependency that we have in agriculture today. We need to break that cycle of dependency.
The so-called modernization of our regulatory systems and the harmonizing of our standards across international boards will simply allow profitable input suppliers and processors the ability to access products that would otherwise be deemed potentially unsuitable for use in Canada.
According to Growing Forward objectives, highlighting the value of buying Canadian products, which is referred to in the paper, can be achieved when we address the misleading labelling regulations that are currently being used. A program that is not dissimilar to country of origin labelling will give Canadians the information they need . An increasing number of Canadians seek to support “grown in Canada”, not simply “processed and packaged in Canada”.
Further, with regard to society's priorities as referenced in the Growing Forward paper, when we're buying locally or buying “grown in Canada”, risks to health and safety can be easily mitigated, and profitability to the farmers will be better and more easily achieved. This goes beyond sound science; it's simply common sense.
As a farmer, I've always managed my own risks. I've had to. I've been farming for over 25 years, and I'm still in the business. Now, that has to say something. This may be statistically impossible, but it's true. I have diversified and strategized to meet market demands locally, nationally, and globally.
The new suite, proposed and soon to be implemented, may be a short-term solution for some farmers, but in the past we have seen those who are truly in need receive insignificant assistance in the form of payments. The Auditor General's report--and I have a copy here--on CAIS highlights flaws that are best avoided in the future. Once again, I want to emphasize that we need to get out of this cycle of dependency.
I'm going to skip some of this, because we're running short on time.
What we need is to focus on programs that equip farmers to extract money from the marketplace, not from the taxpayers. Orderly marketing and supply management have ensured profitability for farmers and must be protected in the international trade arena. These mechanisms serve as an existing business risk management program and are in fact supported by the majority of farmers, not only in Canada but also around the world.
If farmers are to be more successful, they need to be more profitable. The real causes of the farm income crises cannot be mediated by a business risk management program or suite of programs.
Farmers in western Canada—and Kalissa will talk more about this—require adequate, well-maintained, accessible, and affordable transportation options that include rail lines. Our commodity-based, export-oriented farms in remote and prairie regions require that specific provisions be made that ensure that farmers' needs are a top priority in the Canada Transportation Act.
At this time the alarming crisis in the pork and beef sectors cannot be ignored, and I myself am a cattle producer. As we think about what business risk management is supposed to do, we need to in fact stop crises of this magnitude altogether. This past week the NFU passed a resolution calling on the federal and provincial governments to assist farmers with graduated payments to farmers up to a cap of $100,000 based on current market losses. These payments would be outside of CAIS and targeted directly to farmers in order to ensure that this taxpayer money is not captured by the dominant packers or by packer-controlled feedlots, as happened during the BSE crisis.
As with all programs, the NFU is adamant that any and all government interventions go first and foremost to family farmers, and that farmers such as cow-calf producers be targeted for assistance. Further, the NFU asks the House of Commons standing committee to force the dominant beef and pork packers and food retailers to open their books, so that farmers, policy-makers, and taxpayers can find out who are taking the profits out of our livestock. Also, an inquiry into sudden and dramatic crises in the farming sector that also provides primary producers ample opportunity to participate should be launched.
The NFU is currently preparing an advisory document for policy-makers with recommendations on how to ensure stability in the livestock sector and to restore viability to family farms, preventing the need for future taxpayer support. Finally, the NFU advises the Government of Canada to curtail its predisposition to consult with and heavily fund corporate-based think tanks such as CAPI, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute. This supposed arm's-length think tank is exclusionary in nature and far removed from on-farm realities.
In closing, I would like to mention government's role in safeguarding and indeed protecting the public trust. Policy that puts food producers and consumers at the centre of development will ensure stability and fairness. Failing to provide policies that preserve, pursue, and strengthen rural communities and economies, health and safety of our food, sustainability for those who produce our food, and the ability for farmers to thrive is a matter of public trust.
Thank you.
Conservative
Kalissa Regier Youth Vice-President, National Farmers Union
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to talk to you on behalf of the very few young farmers who are left in Canada.
I'm a fifth-generation Saskatchewan farmer. I was raised on a family farm north of Saskatoon with three older siblings, who are all now engineers. When I came back to the farm four years ago, it was a typical prairie grain farm. In the last four years it has undergone some major changes.
I am now the primary operator of our 1,500-acre family farm. We've been licensed to produce hemp since 2004 and have recently been certified for organic production. The farm also produces wheat, barley, lentils, peas, flax, oats, and rye. I have recently renewed another term with the National Farmers Union as the youth vice-president.
It is a very difficult time to work around the issues involving young people in agriculture in Canada. In the last 15 years, the number of farmers under the age of 35 has gone from over 80,000 to under 30,000. That's a loss of over 60%. The average age of Canadian farmers has gone from 50 to 53 in one year alone.
These statistics are not surprising, given that the last several years have seen the lowest farm incomes in Canadian history. Until long-term profitability can be ensured for our young farmers, their numbers will continue to decline.
One of the keys to sustainable profits for young farmers lies in market stability. All too often young farmers lack the financial flexibility to take advantage of our open markets. They are often required to sell their products as soon as they can at a lower price in order to make their payments. The Canadian Wheat Board, along with other supply management strategies, plays a critical role in providing stability to farmers in an increasingly volatile industry.
The initiatives put forward by the new business risk management programs of growing forward are short-term solutions that are effective only after income loss. A true agri-stability program would focus on policies that strengthen farmers' collective bargaining power, thereby lowering individual risk and the need for federal support.
Making the decision to return to rural Saskatchewan and commit myself to a career in farming goes radically against what statistics in agriculture would recommend. Social norms make it acceptable and reasonable for young people to desert their rural roots.
Food and farming are fundamental components in our society as a whole. As a young farmer, my success is dependent not only on my own knowledge and expertise, but on farm policy that is fair and just and puts the interests of farmers first.
Thank you.
Conservative
Bob Friesen President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the invitation.
First of all, I would like to applaud this committee for responding very quickly to the livestock situation. I think you had the cattle industry and the hog industry here the other day. All of the other CFA members support 100% the ideas that the Canadian Pork Council put to you on how to maintain the industry and dig themselves out of the hole they're currently in.
We would urge both levels of government to look not only at administrative ease in trying to solve the problem, but at the specific ideas they have. Often it's very easy to just throw money at the problem, but we want to make sure we don't create an even bigger problem through potential trade action. So thanks again for listening to them.
I'm going to make some brief comments on three specific areas. One will be on the federal-provincial ministers meeting that happened last weekend. I'm going to talk briefly about the Growing Forward document that came out of Whistler. Then I will have a few comments about the excellent list of recommendations this committee provided on agriculture.
First of all, on the FPT meeting last week, we think it was fairly positive. We were very happy that the ministers agreed to create an extension for all non-BRM programming.
One of the biggest issues that came up at the industry ministers round table in Whistler was an emphasis on making sure there is no disruption in programs or program funding. The ministers clearly came to grips with that, and we'd certainly like to thank them for it.
We're also very happy they spent the amount of time they did discussing the livestock situation. Again that's a clear indication of how serious they realize the situation is. We applaud them for that as well.
It was very gratifying to see that the provincial agriculture minister stepped up to the plate when it came to disaster programming, or agri-recovery as it's going to be called. As you know, there was a problem with the funding issue. It looks like they stepped up to the plate, and we thank the federal minister for being able to bring them together on that one.
We initially expressed concern about regional disaster programs, but we've since learned that the components for a disaster program would apply to a national disaster as well. When it comes to a huge disaster there might be a difference in the funding, but that's fine as long as there's something in place for it to trigger very quickly.
The one concern we have--and I've talked about this before here--is that CFA members are still pushing for what we call an AgriFlex component in business risk management. That was mentioned in your list of recommendations as well. It is simply the flexibility to provide some federal dollars to provinces to develop a provincial-specific component that would address a regional- or provincial-specific need. It should still meet national objectives. But we feel there's room for something there that would add a very constructive component to the entire suite of programs. So we will continue to ask you for support on that. I know they discussed it at the federal-provincial meeting, and we hope that work will continue and something will come out of it.
When it comes to the Growing Forward document, again we were happy with the document that came out of Whistler. It included a lot of the elements that CFA members had put in what we called our Canadian farm bill. Rather than have three pillars, they have three circles. We think that's a positive illustration, especially when you overlap those three circles and come up with a little triangle in the middle. That's the integration we need in agriculture with all the different policies we have.
We call those three circles the public goods and services element, the business risk management element, and the strategic growth element. We think that the Growing Forward document contains enough flexibility for the industry to continue to provide input to the process and come up with a very constructive final next-generation APF.
I can tell you that the industry is ready and raring to go to work on program details. It's very anxious to get at that. We'd really like to see what the whole thing is going to look like on the ground, so we can't wait to start the next round of consultations.
Let me very quickly touch on two areas.
I know that we've talked at great length about business risk management, and so I'm not going to spend any more time on that, except to say that we were very happy that we got the contributory top tier in CAIS. That couldn't have come at a better time for the grains and oilseeds industry. The only problem is that with the diversity we have in Canada and the different sectors we have in Canada, that top tier couldn't have come at a worse time for the livestock industry. We hope, again, that the governments will look at the suggestion that CPC had on how to deal with that, because in the long term that top tier will be positive for all industries.
Very quickly on public goods and services, I believe you've all heard about the agricultural land use services initiative that we have. There are three or four pilot projects now across Canada. We're very positive about those. Just as an example, one of those pilot projects deals with the community, the municipality, and the provincial government recognizing that there are quite a few farmers in an area where there's a lot of water. They want to make sure that the water isn't contaminated, so they're providing some money for farmers to create bigger buffer zones than what the regulation calls for. That's a very positive thing in that it creates a strong crosswalk between farmers and what we would typically refer to as urban people. Surprisingly enough, only 11% of people living in rural areas are actually farmers, so it's important that we have a strong crosswalk between farmers and non-farm rural and urban people. What the public goods and services pillar is meant to do--and these pilot projects are a good example--is to help farmers do what they otherwise might not be able to afford to do because they can't pass on the added costs on to the consumer. It helps to achieve a social objective in that it works towards maintaining and improving Canada's natural capital. Using public funds to help farmers who provide a public good would also eventually decrease the load on business risk management.
So that's what we mean when we talk about public goods and services. They don't have to be only LS initiatives. They can be environmental farm plans. They can be food safety programs, because food safety programs are for the public good as well, in that they help us to brand Canada internationally. And so we think there's some positive potential there.
I won't mention business risk management again, but I would like to talk a little bit about the strategic growth pillar. In the last APF, there was recognition that we needed funding pillars. That's what the first APF was. There were very important funding pillars, but not enough time was spent on developing strategy to make sure that our industry grows and that it can achieve better profitability.
Aside from the usual things such as making sure we get better market access or profitable market access internationally either through the WTO or bilaterals, maintaining our ability to have marketing structures such as supply management, voluntary marketing boards, legislation for co-ops, or even single-desk selling--all these farmer empowerment tools--I would like to touch on two things that we started working on. They are certainly not a magic bullet for the entire industry but, we believe, an incremental step towards being strategic in agriculture. One is what we call the co-op investment plan. I don't think I've mentioned this to this committee before, but we looked to Quebec for the model. All of you know how co-ops work. Typically if they work everywhere else as they do in Manitoba, you have a $10 membership or a $20 membership in a co-op, but there's no incentive for you to invest any more in a co-op because you don't get any investment return.
In Quebec they've created a tax concession if you invest in a co-op, because that's the only benefit then that accrues back to you, other than, of course, patronage payments by either buying volumes or selling volumes through an input or buying co-op. So they've created a tax concession, and in Quebec $6 million worth of tax concessions has resulted in $36 million of direct capital investment in co-ops and a further $100 million investment by the co-ops in rural areas.
We're saying that if we were to apply that nationally, somewhere between $16 million and $20 million of tax concessions would eventually result in hundreds of millions of dollars of direct capital investment and the accruing of further benefits to rural areas. We think that would be a great model, at not too much expense, to create a stronger environment for co-ops, because we know that the co-op system can be a good farmer empowerment tool.
Secondly, I want to touch very briefly on what I talked about the last time I was at the committee. That's the “grown in Canada” idea. You mentioned that in your recommendations. We did the research. I believe we sent you a copy of the results of that research, which said 90% of Canadians would like Canadian products clearly identified; 50% said--and I know this is easy to say on the phone--that they would be willing to pay a premium for Canadian products; and 73% of those 50% said that they would be willing to pay a higher premium if they knew part of the premium went back to the farm gate. We've initiated a lot of work on this. We're going to create task teams now to talk to other farmer organizations that are not members of CFA. We're already working with Food Processors of Canada, with grocery distributors. We want to include everybody in this initiative and really start branding Canadian products in Canada.
I think I have two minutes left, Mr. Chair. Very quickly, I want to touch on three recommendations. By the way, the entire document, we think, was very positive.
One recommendation that you had was to create an advisory committee to look at agricultural policy. The response there says that they improve consultation by creating task teams, etc., but I have to emphasize the importance and the value of having a strong advisory committee for the federal government, for the federal minister. The advisory committee we had before brought together the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Western Barley Growers Association, and the Canadian Canola Growers Association. That table, when it came to a consensus, had a powerful recommendation for the minister, which also then gave the minister help when he negotiated with provincial ministers.
Your recommendation 19 talks about companion programs. I've already mentioned that. We believe that's a strong part of where we need to go. Recommendation 9 talked about “grown in Canada”. Thank you very much for that one. Recommendation 17 talks about programs such as SDRM and SDPI. There I would only like to comment that the horticulture industry across Canada has come up with a very good national production insurance program, better than anything else that could be designed. We'd ask for your support on that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll stop there. I would be willing to answer any questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, Mr. Friesen.
We're going to go into our seven-minute rounds. Keep in mind that if you want to have all your questions and answers asked and answered, make sure you do so in that time frame.
Mr. Boshcoff.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Years ago with the BSE issue, prices for cows went to the bottom, and yet the price of beef never really budged. Now, since April--well, July really, but before that--you can see the price for hogs and cattle is going straight down. It's not a bumpy ride; it's straight down, and I'm wondering if now is the time for some allegiance between farmers and consumers or urbanites to get people to understand that somebody is still making even more money and the farmers are making even less and really facing bankruptcy. I'm going to leave that question to whomever.
The second question is on regional flexibility. It's remarkable that within the government structures themselves, for a small operator trying to grow strawberries in northwestern Ontario, the same benchmark of value is used, so that even though it may cost quite a bit more to make that production, things like options or whatever have no regional flexibility. Indeed someone who wants to start farming in an area that's basically outside the farm belts is severely punished and deterred from doing it. Could you address that?
My third question has to do with the green label initiative. I think Canadians are now getting absolutely mortified by the fact that when they buy that apple juice and it says “product of Canada”, they find out the apples are from another nation that may not have anywhere near the restrictions or the inspections that we do. There's an actual doubt as to whether we can trust the government. To me, I think, as the issue grows and public awareness grows...even kids know, for example, there's no butter in butter tarts, that type of thing, and those aren't really Canadian apples, and that's what they told us in school.
So maybe between those three questions, you can take six minutes, please.
Women's President, National Farmers Union
Thank you.
I would just like to address the issue about the price of beef and pork. Hamburger in the grocery store today is as expensive as it's ever been. We saw that happen during the BSE crisis and we see it today. It's worse than ever; the gap is ever widening. The NFU is calling on the House of Commons standing committee to force the dominant beef and pork packers and food retailers to open their books, so that we have a clear picture of where all this money is going. We're also asking for an inquiry into why we have this sudden and dramatic crisis in the livestock industry. There are a lot of farmers out there who want to know and we want to know too.
So yes, please. We can only do so much as farmers. Fortunately, I don't have to buy beef and pork, but it is a huge issue, and consumers don't realize it. But on the other hand, they're hearing about safety net programs for farmers, or business risk management for farmers, and more money for farmers. So it's very difficult for us to have credibility when a lot of taxpayers--and my own family members who aren't farming--are hearing that there's more money out there for farmers, and there's an illusion of wealth in the Canadian countryside. That illusion of wealth is propped up by an incredible amount of debt that the general public also doesn't know about.
I'll let my colleagues address the other questions.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Thank you.
I was with the Canadian Pork Council last night when they presented to a Senate committee, and they're not complaining about the price of grain, that's for sure. They realize that grain producers are finally getting what they deserve. For example, across Canada this year, the price of barley increased between 70% and 75% over last year's price. So they're getting what they deserve. Unfortunately, it is hitting the livestock industry hard, and so is the increase in the dollar. The dollar went up somewhere around 10¢ between January and September of this year, and then in the last two months it suddenly jumped up close to 14¢. So it's also the volatility of the dollar, and of course that has all created very low margins.
In regards to regional flexibility, we recognize that agriculture in Saskatchewan isn't the same as it is in P.E.I. So while we support a national approach, we think within that, there should be some regional flexibility. Quebec has a program themselves. Alberta is always doing little companion things with their own money: they have a floor price in grain and they manipulate their reference margins a little bit. So they do it already anyway. We know the eastern Canadian provinces would like to use some companion money to develop a strategic proactive program. Saskatchewan could use companion money. They have 45% of Canada's arable acres and they have the worst crop insurance program in Canada. They could use some companion money to improve their crop insurance. So that way, we could create equity rather than have Alberta spend lots of money on provincial-specific...Quebec, and of course Ontario would like the RMP program. We think that would be a very constructive addition.
Regarding the “grown in Canada” label, you are right. I don't know how many of you saw Market Place and, I believe, W-FIVE. I think we have the opportunity now to ride the wave and really get consumers onside on this issue. I spoke to the Alberta beekeepers a few weeks ago, and I didn't realize that for years they have had a problem with the Canada number one designation on honey. It's really only an inspection or a grading standard, but it makes it sound as if it's Canadian honey, and they said that half of that honey is probably from another country. The only legislation we have on labelling is that it has to be truthful. So we think there's an excellent opportunity to add to the “buy local” initiatives. This isn't meant to undermine the “buy local” or the provincial initiatives that we have, but simply to add on a constructive component that really brands the Canadian products in the country.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I want to thank you for coming on such short notice; it is not easy. We, too, would have preferred having more committee sessions between now and Christmas, but there was a Speech from the Throne, which is obviously an important event. There was also an economic statement and, in both cases, we were not very impressed given the space occupied by agriculture. Luckily, the Bloc Québécois's demands regarding the Throne Speech included the protection of supply management. This demand was met; that was the good news. However, we had not asked that the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board be discussed again. The government responded with one sentence, tacked onto the one about supply management, in which it indicated that it wanted to put its idea of a dual system for the Canadian Wheat Board back on the program.
As you indicated earlier, Mr. Friesen, the economic statement does not contain any measures to mitigate the crisis in the beef and pork sectors. Your press release following the Throne Speech indicated that you welcomed the support that was expressed for supply management, but that you had some reservations regarding the measures that could have been mentioned, including—and I think that this is an issue about which you care deeply—greater program flexibility. This issue also means a lot to us because, despite what some people may say, the opposition has done a very remarkable job on the committee report tabled last June. Unfortunately a minority report was prepared by the government party. I think that the entire committee produced a remarkable report; I do not want to insult anyone. A lot of space was allotted to the flexibility these programs should have.
However, I would like to hear what you have to say about the government's response, a response that it gave despite our tour, despite the quasi-consensus on program flexibility and despite the very clear report on the flexibility that programs for the provinces were supposed to have. We are talking about the Growing Forward strategic framework, which provides for some flexibility.
Are you optimistic about what you will find in this strategic framework regarding the flexibility about which you care so deeply and speak about quite often?
November 28th, 2007 / 4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
We think there should be a funding envelope that would provide some money for regional or provincial-specific components to add to the national approach in business risk management.
I know in the government response to that recommendation in your report there's talk about not discriminating between sectors. We agree with that. We don't want to create inequity across Canada. We're trying to create equity knowing that agriculture is different because we're so diversified. It's different in some parts of Canada than in others.
There's also mention of a trade concern. We know we have x millions of dollars of allowable amber spending right now and we're quite a bit short of that. We know if there's a Doha Round, of course that amber allowable spending would decrease. If that's the case, then we believe it also behooves the federal government to ensure each province gets its proportional share of that allowable amber spending. Once you take off the national amber spending, each province gets its proportional share of the amber spending that's left. We think that can be done constructively as well through the federal government providing x number of dollars in a funding envelope for regional and provincial-specific companion programs in business risk management.
We're getting encouraging news from both levels of government on flexibility of non-BRM programs. That's important as well. We can't emphasize this one and neglect that one. We think they're both very important, because we think there's a lot of potential for provinces to do regional and provincial-specific initiatives when it comes to non-BRM programs as well. We think the two should go hand in hand.
Women's President, National Farmers Union
Talking about these programs has never been my forte. I've never personally benefited from them, really, because my farm is so diverse. Also, because we continually talk about them, and because we increasingly and regularly talk about the constraints we have because of our agreements through WTO that have handcuffed us in many ways, I have a feeling this is creating a really insidious culture of dependency. It's not something I really want to talk about, simply because I think it's extremely negative.
I think we need to talk about the harder subject. I think we need to talk about how we got into this pit. How do we address the inequality in the marketplace we find ourselves in? And how do we address that instead of undermining what works in this country, such as the single-desk selling that we have in the Canadian Wheat Board?
So we have on one hand a government that is doggedly determined to undermine and destroy the marketing power we have through the Canadian Wheat Board and, on the other, tops us up through a business risk management program. Now, if that's not insidiously creating a culture of dependency, then what is?
So I find this a very negative thing to talk about.
What I like to talk about is more single-desk selling, more supply management. This would certainly address, on a certain level, the income crisis we have in Canada. But that's a much harder discussion to have.