Evidence of meeting #6 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 program.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It's crucial then that the federal government step up to the plate.
Did you say that Alberta put in $60 million?
December 3rd, 2007 / 5:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Co-operative Association
The example was that under the current co-op developments initiative, with only $1 million per year for advisory services spread out across the country, only $60,000 is available in Alberta.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The second question relates to Larry's question to Jacques about the flexibility. I don't know whether you folks are having the same problem we're having.
With the Growing Forward document—and maybe Larry has access to documents that we don't—the fact of the matter is that we have nothing concrete to work from. You people are meeting here on Growing Forward. We've seen the documents that were sent out last spring. We've heard a few statements from the minister where he's talking about flexibility. But keep in mind he also said an absolute no to the Ontario farm proposal for business risk management as a companion program.
So my question is really—or maybe the chair, the parliamentary secretary, or somebody can tell us—when are we going to have some documentation? Do you folks have any documentation? The devil is always in the details. Do you have anything concrete that you're working from that is crucial to our next five-year development plan in agriculture? Or are you just operating from smoke and mirrors like we are?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'm referring to the whole Growing Forward proposal. It's the whole CAIS program with a new name. It's no different. Let's be honest here.
5:30 p.m.
President, Dairy Producers of Canada
I think what we have is the start of documents that we've looked at. I know CFA is engaged in a lot more technical discussions. You just had the federal–provincial–territorial meeting. People are dialoguing, but we haven't seen any final paper or how it's going to work exactly as a total package, because one affects the other. Everybody has a pretty good idea, but it's not finalized. That's how we view it, I guess.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It's tough to make recommendations. The best thing we have to go on is the standing committee's report from the spring, in which we made 30-some recommendations. The government as much as said no to most of them--vague and uncertain.
I'd like to have something concrete from the Government of Canada that would give us an idea of where they're really intending to go, rather than the various contradictory messages we're getting from the government.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Your time has expired.
Does anybody have a comment they want to make on that?
As Mr. Easter is well aware, the Growing Forward documentation is still in negotiations between the provinces and the feds. That information is being shared with the major farm groups, as they're participating in it as well through the CFA.
André.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mrs. Skelton spoke earlier and it was not about Growing Forward. But she spoke for several minutes on another subject, so I am going to expand on the Conservative government's specific support of supply management. You are here and you follow what is going on in Geneva closely, as we do, though perhaps not as closely as you. I imagine that your antennas are well tuned and that we are receiving information. At the moment, those negotiations are moving forward more rapidly than they have done for some time. The pressures are getting stronger and stronger.
The government has acted, but let us not believe that it is because of divine intervention. The opposition parties and agricultural producers have done a great deal. We are happy with the results. But the real result will be seen when an agreement is reached that provides no penalties for supply management producers. That is the real result.
Have you heard that the iMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of International Trade will not sign any agreement at the WTO that contains concessions on supply management?
5:35 p.m.
President, Dairy Producers of Canada
No, I have not heard anything to that effect. Negotiations are going on, but we have not heard the current minister, or his predecessor, say that he will not sign.
We have had many discussions with all political parties, including those who have been in power in the last three or four years. The negotiations have been going on for a long time. No one in power has ever said that he will not sign.
It is political, of course. We get very good support from all political parties, including the opposition parties. Our yardstick will be the method and the tools used to defend the position and to achieve a positive result once the details of the agreement are finalized. We want to be assured that all possible ways of defending and repositioning vulnerable products are used to the utmost. When you negotiate, you want to get everything you can. All avenues must be explored. That is what we want to be assured of.
Speaking of exploring avenues, here are two good ones: sending a letter to Falconer, and asking that supply management be included in the Speech from the Throne. We do not want to stop there. We want good strategies to show the international community that Canada's stand on supply management is firm.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Duceppe has asked for supply management to be included in the Speech from the Throne. The strategy involves putting as much pressure as possible on the government so that the negotiations reflect its recent decision. We did not demand that for nothing.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of International Trade have never said that they will not sign any agreement at the WTO that affects supply management, even if the consequences for our producers would not be disastrous. But we have heard the Minister of International Trade and the previous Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food say that Canada does not want to be the only country not signing the WTO agreement. So we have to be very vigilant and watch what is going on at the moment.
Do you agree?
5:40 p.m.
President, Dairy Producers of Canada
Yes, I agree completely. This is a negotiation that we cannot take for granted. Our interests must be defended.
5:40 p.m.
President, Dairy Producers of Canada
Not at all. We all have a role to play.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I am going back to risk management. Earlier, we mentioned some programs. I think that Wayne is right when he says that we talk about it in committee, we talk about it outside the committee, but we do not know all the details. We have indications that suggest that we will be moving to one modality or the other, but we are not sure. I repeat that I am afraid that the government is going to impose programs at some stage. All that we would be able to do then would be what we do when we get programs imposed on us that do not work for us: try to point out the problem.
We would prefer to deal with these irritants by knowing the details before they are implemented. The disaster program is one that concerns me a little. Provincial ministers and the federal government have decided to extend present programs for a year, so we know even fewer details of the major disasters program.
What do you expect from a disaster program? With the mad cow crisis, dairy producers were dealing with a major disaster. Avian flu is also a problem. What do you expect from a program of this kind?
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Most of Mr. Bellavance's time has expired, but do you want to answer his questions?
5:40 p.m.
Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada
I have a whole book to go through here.
I think what we're looking for out of the disaster program is that the individual farmer is not financially hurt because of a disaster. Some of these disasters have been put on individual businessmen in agriculture, and it is unfair for that to happen. We need to look at this collectively and as an industry. We need to work it so programs are available. If there's a disaster for an individual or in an individual area, the program must have enough flexibility to be able to accommodate that. Right now the program does not have that flexibility.
5:40 p.m.
General Manager, Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency
The government did recognize that there were gaps in the risk programs available for supply management through the Health of Animals Act. It recognized that in some commodities the compensation payments through the Health of Animals Act needed to be augmented.
From what we know now, the current program, CAIS, will likely not assist our producers to 100%. We have questions about whether the new program will provide less coverage than the current CAIS program. We already know that the CAIS program is not going to provide some of our producers adequate coverage. On what we're looking at in the new BRM--the AgriInvest and AgriRecovery--if it's true that supply management will not be eligible for the top 15% where we are currently, that's even less coverage than we have now.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you very much.
I apologize again for the technical difficulties we experienced today, and I appreciate you sticking with us. As you can see, a number of people have come and gone because of the travel conditions, but I appreciate the testimony you've provided today and your forthright answers to the questions. This will help us formulate our final report that will go to the minister this winter.
With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
5:40 p.m.
An hon. member
I so move.