Agriculture Committee on Nov. 28th, 2007

[Colleen Ross]

Well, we went to hear Andrew Nikiforuk, and when you hear about what's going on, that's a reality. More and more farmers need to know about this, and consumers need to know about what has actually happened in the countryside.

There is a movement by local people wanting the green label. There is a movement, and sometimes we can't wait for legislatures and bureaucrats to catch up. It's already happening in the countryside for those of us who truly want to farm.

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

Bob, do you have a comment?

[Bob Friesen]

To the extent that it works that way in those industries that have decided they want to have supply management, then yes, we would support it. As a subsidy applied to industries going below the cost of production, based on current price and current production, certainly CFA members would not support that as a national program, because the provinces that export a lot would clearly create a trade challenge.

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

Okay.

That leads me to my next question. On Monday we had a comment from somebody to the effect that we're always competing against foreign governments. We talk about growing and being branded in Canada. In our report we have some really good recommendations on institutional buying and food security. The response--the threat--that seems to come from the government is that we have to be careful because of trade agreements; we have to be careful not to violate any agreements we have. When we look at this, then, what should be the role of our federal government? How far should the government be prepared to go to support our farmers? The example always used is the Americans, and we saw this first-hand; they're doing it.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it: we're often very timid in our response. What role should the government be taking to make sure we don't have this disparity that you talk about in the paper, that we've always seen around this table? What should we be doing now?

I'll stop there.

[Colleen Ross]

I've already mentioned it once before, if you don't mind my being the person to address this. Our trade agreements have stymied us. They've kept us in a constant state of poverty. And what do we hear? We need more market access.

I was in Hong Kong. I was at the WTO ministerial meetings. When I heard people who were representing industry and who have already hugely.... There's a lot of money in food. There's a lot of money in the agrifood chain. There are a lot of stakeholders who are doing very nicely. They're the ones, and some of their colleagues—I call them farmers farming farmers—who were asking for more market access.

So in order for them to get this market access that they already have--and hasn't actually benefited them--they feel that getting rid of supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board, the only two chips we have left on the table.... Which one are we going to give away first? Supply management? No, it's going to be the Canadian Wheat Board. That's going to get them more market access, and they naively think that's going to give them profit.

We are stymied by our trade agreements. Why are we held hostage and captive to these trade agreements that we never should have made? I will be radical enough to state here right now that we need to take agriculture out of WTO. I'm not saying no to trade. Trade is a reality; we are a trade-based country. But we need to not be trading away agriculture through the WTO and then let it handcuff us so that we're in a constant state of poverty in the countryside.

Getting back to the public trust, that's what we're saying. When we trust a government, and we have incredible poverty—let's just call it what it is, and that's what it is—do we have a safety net? When you're already on the ground, how much further are you going to fall? What's with the safety net? There's no net. You don't need to fall into a safety net because you have no further to fall.

We need to radically turn around--and that's why it's too darned hard. We talk about OMAFRA, but it's not the employees at OMAFRA. The Liberal government in Ontario has said some wonderful things about what they want in agriculture. It's the senior bureaucrats in OMAFRA who have not delivered, and that's what we want.

We see the same thing in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and I can name names. They have a different vision. We need to separate corporation from government, from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and OMAFRA. When we go to the WTO, whose interests do we see best served? The corporations, which are still doing very well, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

I don't know if that answered your questions, but that's my little rant.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

The time has expired. We're starting our five-minute round.

Mr. Steckle.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Very quickly, we changed the name of CAIS to something called Growing Forward, or whatever we want to call it. We have four different components of that. But really, what has changed, other than that the 50% is now a NISA-type top-up on the CAIS program? Really not very much else has changed.

On the flexibility you talked about, Bob, in terms of what we have, does the new program give more flexibility? If that's the case, then what about Ontario, which is going forward with the risk management program and is asking the feds to support it? Would you support the risk management program concept that's been put forward by Ontario and guaranteed support by Ontario?

[Bob Friesen]

We'd support it if they applied it provincially. We wouldn't support it as a national program, no.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Would you support the federal government's supporting Ontario in that program?

[Bob Friesen]

Yes.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay.

[Bob Friesen]

You also asked another question on what has improved in the CAIS program. You're right, the top tier in the long term will improve it. We have better negative margin coverage now than we had previously. We also have a better inventory calculation.

As we're moving along, I know it seems like it's a brutally slow process, but there have been positive changes made.

If we can get production insurance for all the other commodities as well, if we can get that AgriRecovery in to apply regionally and nationally—and we have every reason to think that's going to happen now—it will continue to be an improved program.

With the AgriStability, we always will have the challenge, because it's based on a historical reference margin. We will always have that challenge, because if your reference margin goes down then it takes a long time before you trigger it.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I don't believe in reference margin programs in the long term. They're like crop insurance; when you have deteriorating crops over a series of years, it doesn't work for you. This doesn't either.

If we look at what we've seen happening in terms of our exports, in 1993 we exported $12 billion, and today we're exporting $24 billion, $25 billion, $26 billion. We've never seen agriculturalists so poverty stricken as they have been for the last three or four years.

Colleen, you're absolutely right. If we're simply going to feed into this export concept so that the multinationals are going to make huge money on it and the primary producers are going bust, then I don't know what we're busting ourselves up for, because really it's for no good cause.

You were also wondering about whether we should be talking about having a report and asking for the books to be opened. Those books have been opened, and we have a report that you can read. You need only read that someone was making 600% when in fact they were taking $200 an animal for offal. It was not true at all. We have that report and we'd be happy to share it with you. So that's been done. We don't need to do that again.

Let me tell you that we, as farmers, have been taken for suckers. We've been taken for suckers for far too long. The supply management system has worked, and until we're ready to move forward boldly and do things differently.... We can call it whatever we want, but unless we're prepared to change what we have done in the past and move radically forward.... I quite believe--and you talked about doing certain things--we need to take a great step even further than that. I believe agriculture needs to be brought under the umbrella of one single government in this country.

The U.S. has one farm plan for 50 states. We have 10 provinces, three territories and a federal government trying to do agriculture. It doesn't work.

What are your comments?

[An hon. member]

That's a good question.

[Bob Friesen]

I'm a hog producer and I would argue that if I'm making $5 a hog, the more I can produce to export the better off I am. If I'm losing money, the more I produce the more I lose. It's not the export market that has created the problem we have in our export industries; it's a combination of many factors that has created the problem.

Our hog industry has done very well in the past. Now it has a whole raft of things that are challenging it, and we need to make sure it recovers, but to make the simple statement that as our exports go up our income has dropped simply does not create the illustration that it should.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

But I'm telling you, Bob—

[Bob Friesen]

The income hasn't dropped as a result of exporting. The income has dropped as a result of many things, but the income drop is not contingent solely on exporting.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

We recently had the cattle and hog industries here asking for $2.5 billion. When you put the multiples together, it comes to roughly $2.5 billion. Where is that money going to come from? It's not going to come from that $600 million. That isn't even going to touch it. Where do you suppose that money should come from?

You've said you agreed to their asking for that money. Where do you suggest that money should come from?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I ask that you keep your reply brief.

[Bob Friesen]

I'm not familiar with what the cattle industry asked for. The hog industry is not asking for ad hoc dollars.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Storseth is next.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming forward today. I have to confess I have a naive question to start off with. I'm new to this committee.

Is there a connection between the National Farmers Union and the federal NDP?

[Colleen Ross]

No. Why would you ask that question?

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

It seemed like you guys were very much in line with each other. As I said, I'm new to the committee, but it seemed like something that was rather obvious.

[Colleen Ross]

We're a very open organization. Any member of Parliament, any party, can come to us and ask us for our expertise or advice.