Agriculture Committee on Nov. 28th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll go to Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank our guests for coming here today.

Kalissa, I appreciate some of your comments in relation to the young age of farmers. My three sons are actually the sixth generation on our farm, and they've gone on to other careers, and they're not going to farm.

So there's going to be a void there. So I appreciate that.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

So you can't retire.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I can't retire.

I have a question here, Bob, for you. Your colleagues here from the National Farmers Union have recently filed a formal brief with the Ontario ombudsman regarding the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The NFU has basically made a number of statements to the effect that the provincial department is malfunctioning, it's failing Ontario's agricultural producers, and they've asked the ombudsman to investigate the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

This leads me to some of your discussion. You came here today in support of what you call AgriFlex. You're asking that the federal government allow federal agricultural funding to be transferred to the provinces and that they let the provinces basically do with it what they please.

Given the accusations by the NFU in regard to the Ontario ministry, have you reconsidered your proposal from CFA to the federal government in support of AgriFlex in any way?

[Bob Friesen]

Sorry, I haven't read that report, so I'm not exactly sure what that refers to. We don't support the concept of AgriFlex only because Ontario supports it.

I should say one thing. We don't support the federal government's flowing money into a province and letting them do, willy-nilly, what they want to do with the money. First of all, it should be contingent on the province also putting in their contribution, their 40¢ contribution. Second, there should be accountability, that the money is being used in a constructive way to deal with either a BRM need or a non-BRM need in a way that continues to try to achieve the national objectives that have been set through the national programs.

I can't comment on the Ontario ministry. I can comment on the RMP that has been suggested, and I believe they're doing that—

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

That really wasn't the question, Bob.

I guess the one thing I would like you to answer.... And I respect that you haven't seen what they've sent out. But they've said in there that basically the department is malfunctioning. That's said in there. Do you agree with that statement?

[Bob Friesen]

I can't comment on.... Let me put it this way. This thing we see—

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

You don't have to comment on theirs. But do you agree with that statement? Do you think that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture has been performing—I guess as what you would call a farm leader—up to par?

[Bob Friesen]

Are they malfunctioning? I certainly couldn't say they're malfunctioning, no. With the things that we see through OFA, we believe they've done some very constructive things.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. Taking this a little bit farther, my next question is this. If the federal government turned over a bunch of money to this provincial Liberal government, do you think they could be trusted with that federal money?

[Bob Friesen]

We believe there should be accountability if money is flowed to provinces, much like there was before we had the first APF, when there was federal money for companion programs. We simply think there should be accountability.

That hasn't always been the case. Through this whole process of the Fredericton formula and changing the Fredericton formula, there was one incident in which I know B.C. got a considerable increase in federal funding and the organizations there told us they never saw the money. So we believe that if the federal government flows money into the provinces, there has to be strict accountability, that it be used for its intended purpose and that it help to achieve national objectives.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

So it's probably a fair statement to say, really, that money didn't appear to get out there, so there could be some potential to the NFU's accusation.

Anyway, to go on to another subject, some provinces, as you know, and they were mentioned here today, and I don't know whether it was by you or Mr. Bellavance.... The Quebec government, for example, pours money into their agriculture, and I applaud them for that. That's something we have long lacked here in Ontario. And Alberta also has some programs where they step up to the plate.

One example I want to mention was the $165 million in support of the agriculture sector made just recently by the Alberta government. Now, it could be said that cow-calf producers in other provinces, whether it's Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba...in fact, I think probably British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are affected more by that Alberta decision than Ontario even. There is a ripple effect. Given that, that basically other provinces are disadvantaged, do you think that AgriFlex would maybe not only make those regional differences...but perpetuate them? Can you comment on that? Is this going to solve that kind of thing?

[Bob Friesen]

Again, because agriculture is so different, if you picture Alberta beside Saskatchewan, and Alberta is spending money, say, on a floor price in the grains and oilseeds sector, then obviously Saskatchewan is behind the eight-ball on that. What we're saying is we think that some federal dollars to the provinces, with accountability, could help level the playing field.

It would not necessarily have to be that every province would use it in the sector. The eastern provinces have said that they would like to use the money to do something proactive in a more strategic way. As I mentioned earlier, Saskatchewan might use it to improve their crop insurance. They might decide that, for Saskatchewan, the best thing they could do and the best way they could address a provincial-specific need is to improve crop insurance, whereas Alberta has done it with a floor price in grains and oilseeds. Manitoba might decide to address it differently. We think it would help level the playing field.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Do you think AgriFlex would help to solve that? That is really what the question was.

[Bob Friesen]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time is up, Mr. Miller.

Just to follow up on Mr. Miller's comments on AgriFlex and on your comments as well, Bob, if P.E.I, for example, wanted to use those flexibility dollars in the potato industry, wouldn't that actually tilt the playing field? They could actually distort production, in contrast to Manitoba or Alberta or Ontario.

[Bob Friesen]

It's not necessarily the case that they would use it in the potato industry. What we're saying is that if the national program is leaving a gap in a province, then they should be able to address that in a provincial-specific way. It could be that P.E.I would use it maybe even in public goods and services in creating bigger buffer zones, I don't know, but it would give the province the opportunity to measure what's happening in the province and say, this is the need that we need to address that can't be covered by the national programs we have.

But again, we're not trying to create inequity; we're trying to create a more level playing field, so that with any inadequacies created by a national program, depending on what agricultural industry you're in and what provincial-specific challenges you have, you could then address that need.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

As a cow-calf producer, I've grown up watching what's happened with the provincial subsidy wars and seeing industry move from Manitoba into Alberta as they bought it away. I'm just concerned that those flex dollars could be used by other provinces to support specific commodities that will actually tilt the playing field rather than level it out. But that's just commentary.

Mr. Atamanenko, it's your turn. You have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

Colleen and Kalissa, it's good to see you again, and you also, Bob.

We spent some time at the NFU convention this last week. There were really interesting topics, such as food security, and a lot of doom and gloom. I should tell my colleagues that one of the highlights was the music of Kalissa; I had hoped she would have brought her keyboard here today to perform for us, but she didn't, so maybe next time.

We seem to be talking a lot about P.E.I. today, when Wayne is not here, and that's kind of interesting, but there is a question from an organic farmer in North Milton, Prince Edward Island. A statement he has is that in his opinion federal policy with regard to agriculture calls for the intense capitalization and mechanization of farming, and that's reflected somewhat in the NFU report in Ontario. Then he goes on to say, “These policies have resulted in astounding profits for agribusiness companies at the expense of rural farmers”.

His question to the NFU and also to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is whether they support the implementation of a formula that would compensate farmers for the difference lost when the market price for their commodities drops below their cost of production. That's my first question; I hope I'll have a chance to ask another one.

Kalissa, as a young farmer, maybe you could give us a reflection on this.

[Kalissa Regier]

Can you repeat the very last question?

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

Do you support the implementation of a formula that would compensate farmers for the difference lost when the market price for their commodities drops below the cost of production?

[Kalissa Regier]

Well, absolutely, we would support that. I would support that as a young farmer. If you can't cover the cost of production, there's really nothing more you can do, is there? That makes sense, doesn't it?

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

Colleen, do you have a comment?

[Colleen Ross]

Yes, that's something the NFU's been recommending for many years--that we have a guaranteed floor price that guarantees us our cost of production, and then some. That's the beauty of supply management; it guarantees your cost of production, plus a living wage.

I know up and down the concession where I live, Rowena Road--and Kalissa and I went for a walk there last week--I can point out those farmers who are guaranteed a living wage because they are protected by supply management and those who are not. Once that supply management is gone, I can say good-bye, good-bye, good-bye, you are gone; you're off the land. So we would like to see more of that, absolutely.

Can I just mention that the NFU convention wasn't all doom and gloom? A lot of it was positive, because we talked about some food sovereignty, and food sovereignty is about people and social justice. It's about cooperatives and having supply management. It wasn't all doom and gloom.

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

It was a little depressing, but that's okay.