Evidence of meeting #7 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 programs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Research Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Waste as well; lignocellulosic includes a variety of feed stocks, including wastes—forest waste, agricultural waste, corn stover.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To follow up on what Mr. Easter asked you, like him and I suspect all other members of the committee—and I dare say all members of Parliament—I am receiving emails from beef and pork producers. Such as they exist in my small urban/rural riding, I've heard from, I dare say, all of them. I say this with no disrespect, Mr. Marsland, intended towards you, but these folks want some immediate and some concrete answers. Discussion is continuing, and that's nice. Industry is engaged—okay. An action plan has been struck—all right. But those sound rather futuristic, or “at some point in the future”. We've heard presentations by cattle producers and hog producers, and we've heard—no sarcasm intended—that cash by Christmas is what's required.
You've talked about “interim advance” potential, and “targeted advance” potential. You'll surely know that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is requesting, à la 2004, a special advance, and I presume you're familiar with the formula they have.
I want to have, if I may, not a yes or no answer, but a cogent, tight answer as to whether these producers can expect a special advance, and if so, how it will be calculated and when it might actually be received by them.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Business Risk Management Program Development, Farm Financial Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
In terms of what the cattle industry has recommended, it was a per head advance, as you indicated, for 2004. Not to discount it, we have identified that there are risks with a per head advance, as there were in 2004. When we did a similar type of advance in 2004, we ended up with tens of millions of dollars of overpayments; producers ended up in an overpayment situation. What we're trying to do is use the new suite of programs to get the money that's available under the new suite out as quickly as possible.
We are working through a government-industry task team to look at what other gaps and what other options there are to also flow money to producers, for instance, under the federal advance payment program. They have specifically asked for a per head advance, and we have raised the concern that when we did this last time we ended up with lots of overpayments under the program, because the per head advance isn't tied directly to how we calculate the final entitlement under the program.
So we are working through an industry government task team to look at what options we have in addition to accelerating what's available today.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
This will be my last question and then I'll defer to Mr. Boshcoff.
Realistically, on the ground, what they need to know is, what will they receive and when might they receive it?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Business Risk Management Program Development, Farm Financial Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
As of today they can access the federal advance payment program, and they can access an interim payment under the AgriStability program. Once we have the agreement signed, which we expect within two weeks, money will be available early in the new year with respect to the $600 million.
Each producer's situation is different. I can't give you a dollar figure that applies to all producers.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
There are only about 30 seconds left in this. We're on five-minute rounds now.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Sure.
In the document, there's an overwhelming commitment to supply management. Is that felt throughout the public service, so that when you go to work every morning you're saying, “We are the champions, we are the administrative wheels that will make sure this system continues to run in Canada”?
You may be getting different directions when you see the Wheat Board under attack and then the other supply management systems being left alone. I'll leave it at the question: philosophically, is the department behind supply management?
December 5th, 2007 / 4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Yes.
4:20 p.m.
A voice
Good timing.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Just to correct the record, I might mention that Mr. Boshcoff said the Wheat Board is not a supply management program.
Witnesses, thank you for being here.
I want to just share a little experience I had last Thursday and Friday, and maybe afterward get your comments. I had the opportunity to be in P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, and I met with a number of farm groups, some government officials, some agriculture ministers, the Premier of Nova Scotia. I was really pleased to see how well I was received, how well Growing Forward was received.
Actually, at one of the conferences I attended, the motto—that's not the right word—that day was “transition to profitability”. All of them acknowledged the difficulties in the pork and beef industries, but they said, “We really feel that the department is putting farmers first”. They actually used that term. They talked about a transition to sustainability, they talked about profitability. I was really pleased.
The other thing they talked about is that finally—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wonder if Mr. Lauzon could give us the quotes and the individuals who said that, because quite honestly, I don't believe him that it was said.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
You might want to read your local papers.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I think they were on the front pages of most of them. As a matter of fact, they were very positive about the things that were happening.
I seem to be getting lots of interruptions here.
However, all that to say that whatever you're doing, somehow or another people are saying, for the first time in a long time, “We're working together”. Industry, the farmers, the associations, the provinces, and the feds are there at the table together.
How did that come together? How did we get these negotiations working so positively?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I'm not sure I know the secret to that, but I think what we've tried to do in the development of Growing Forward is engage the industry in a staged discussion, go out there and begin discussions about what is right about the current framework, what do we need to learn from experience and so on, and listen to producers, and then take that forward. I think the challenge for us is to maintain that momentum as we go into the next round of consultations.
We have indicated, and federal and provincial ministers have directed, that we begin those consultations in the new year. We're very much cognizant of the fact that we need to strike the right balance. We need to go out with ideas that people can discuss in detail, but at a stage before we've developed them into programs and it's too late to change them. I think getting that balance right is key.
One of the key issues for the provinces is the issue of flexibility in non-business risk management programming. We very much want to design a system, not just in principle but in practice, that can work on the ground with a degree of flexibility for provinces to reflect regional differences while achieving national objectives.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
If I can just interrupt you there, we were partners in some of the non-BRM programs, and they were so well received, I think that's where we have to expand. Are you going to be increasing the non-BRM side of the equation? Because people are buying into that, at least certainly in the Maritimes, and the people I've spoken with.
Regardless of political stripe, regardless of where you're coming from in the food chain, can you grow that non-BRM side?
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Those of course are decisions for ministers, but there is certainly much enthusiasm out there in terms of the types of activities, particularly in the area of science and innovation. As I said, we did have some science and innovations planning in the APF, but it has become clear from the consultations that people want us to expand that to make the connection between the farm and the rest of the chain in terms of—
