Evidence of meeting #10 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was trade.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you.
You're well over the time. I know, Mr. Strankman, you wanted to get in, but we're a minute over. Maybe you can get in on the next witness.
We'll go over to Mr. Shipley, for five minutes, please.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Thank you, witnesses, for coming out.
Mr. Robertson or Mr. Phillips, one of the things we've heard more than once today, and I agree with you, quite honestly, is that decisions need to be based on sound science. We've heard that not only today but on other days.
To my mind, it seems we come up against issues when we do that, unfortunately. In my province of Ontario we now have a ban on pesticide use. We have an animal protection act coming in. We have a seal hunt—that's a national issue—that's based on science, in terms of the kill, in terms of animal protection and cruelty. It seems it always rolls out like the pesticide use one. That was provincial. I can tell you it will affect every farmer in Canada. Those are science based.
My question is, how can you help us and the public to understand that science should not be a convenience thing in terms of when you are going to accept it or not? That's what it seems to be. How can you help us deal with that with the public?
I would ask Mr. Phillips, sir, if you would....
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada
Sure. I think as farmers we have to be more active as well. I know in Ontario you have the AGCare group, which is a broad coalition of them.
I think as farmers we tend to get busy just farming. Sometimes you're just so busy running your own business and looking after your own operation and families and everything else that goes into it that we don't look to see where public opinion is going. I think as farmers we've gotten behind where public opinion is going.
We were just in the trade committee earlier listening to discussions on the ban in Quebec on 2,4-D, and even though there may be science showing it is a safe product, the reality is that there are people in urban settings who have valid concerns for themselves that the product may not be safe for our children, so we should have a ban.
There's a lot of work to do as producers, but I think the producers are still a credible voice out there and I think your consumers...that's why you see people wanting to connect with farmers in local food markets, as Mr. Bellavance was talking about, with more local production and local consumption. As producers I think we simply have to be better organized to take the message out that we are farming in environmentally sustainable ways, we base our decisions on sound science, we use safe products, and we'll produce safe food for you. I think we're just behind the eight ball on where the public is on that.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
It's like a lot of cases, I think, where two aspirins are fine, but the bottle's not good for you. That's what happens in some of the situations.
Harmonization is another one that has been a large issue with agricultural producers. I'll ask Mr. Robertson to deal with this one. Again, I'm just looking for help. Mr. Storseth touched on it. We started with OUI, and we have the GROU, but the regulatory.... Again, it goes back to science, and it goes back to dollars and what researchers will actually spend in Canada, often because of our small market.
How can you help us? What can we do to help in terms of expanding that GROU program to make it viable or make it accessible for our farmers so that they have access to competitive products that are approved in the United States? In fact, we import products with that on, but as farmers, we're not allowed to use them in our country.
12:40 p.m.
President, Grain Growers of Canada
The key is not necessarily expanding the GROU program. It is remembering that the GROU program is a step towards harmonization. We have to stop fighting. We have to stop saying that USDA-approved science is better than our science, or no, it's not.
We have to come to a standard of what is an agreed-to science for each of these: the EU, the U.S., and ourselves. It's not that difficult to do. A lot of it is that we end up with little bureaucracies trying to protect their own turf to make sure they test everything that's been retested by someone else who's already tested it. We don't need to be doing that.
We need to come to an agreement. They're trying to do that with NAFTA labelling, where we say, “This is acceptable here, it's acceptable here, and it's acceptable here”. I was talking to William Van Tassel, who is with the FPCCQ. He was talking about a particular agriculture chemical that they would love to use in Quebec. I can use it on the Prairies, but he can't use it in Quebec. Why?
He described his land situation. I saw his farm. It's exactly the same as my place. It says on the label that he can't use it. Why? Because it's a minor use. The company would have to completely retest the whole chemical, all over again on everything, just to add one more province for that.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll be sharing my time with the member from Red Deer.
I wanted to make one quick comment, but I didn't get around to it.
Mr. Otto, you've talked about it a few times. Being from Alberta, I read a report back about a year and a half ago that basically was all about Alberta and industry in Alberta and how we led the way in every single value-added industry in the country.
In most industries, it was proportionate. It was huge, except when it came to anything to do with products sold by the Canadian Wheat Board. The plant you're talking about is one of them. Do you feel that the Wheat Board is the direct reason that these value-added industries have been kept out of our province and the prairie provinces in general?
12:45 p.m.
President, Western Barley Growers Association
I'm not going to lay all the blame on the Canadian Wheat Board, but I definitely think they're a significant influence on the investment climate in western Canada. A lot of industries that would like to set up there do not want to be held captive to a single-desk seller to access product to run their businesses. That's definitely hindering the ability to develop a processing or value-added industry in western Canada.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Would you characterize the conversation we've had today, and the comments you and others around the table have made, as character assassination or as the real facts on the ground with western Canadian farmers?
12:45 p.m.
President, Western Barley Growers Association
Our intent was never to make it a character assassination. Everybody knows where the Western Barley Growers stands when it comes to marketing choice.
As for the last financial report put out by the Canadian Wheat Board, the facts we're putting on the table are available in any financial report that they've put out in the last five years. The figures we're using are in there. They're not fictitious figures. Although Mr. Easter may think they are, we have people who have looked into it for us and we've done it ourselves. I've read the reports. Those figures are there.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you.
I have a copy of Mr. Easter's “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace”, and the good news is that he agrees with us on most of this stuff, but he has to pretend that he doesn't like what we're doing.
12:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
March 24th, 2009 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses.
I'm one of those people who spent 34 years teaching in order to support my farming habit.
I'd like to go back to some of the things that have happened in this last year. Of course, we've seen the price of grains increase dramatically, primarily because there were many investment dollars looking for a place to hide after the subprime loans crisis. And of course we saw the input costs go up, because anyone who was selling anything into agriculture was saying they expected this to happen now for the next five years, and they were looking at projections that were showing there would be such and such an amount of money. Probably our operating loans have gone up about 60% from where they were before, and now we're back at probably the prices of two and three years ago trying to pay off those particular debts.
There are a couple of things I'm looking at. During the time when prices were extremely high, we found that people were talking about the problems there would be for fuel—food for fuel and everything else. All of the opportunities grain farmers were going to potentially have, to sell into ethanol markets and so on, started to generate some other friction coming from other areas.
Do you have some comment with respect to the problems that particular market had as far as agriculture is concerned, and on whether there are ways to make people realize that when the science comes in, as far as ethanol is concerned maybe they have to be careful?
12:45 p.m.
President, Grain Growers of Canada
The whole “food for fuel” thing really became a red herring in the media a year ago. Science is galloping ahead, especially on biofuels, and we'll be at a point pretty soon when it won't be economical to do anything except on a cellulosic basis anyway. The cellulosic bacteria are at a pretty advanced level now and on a month-by-month basis are galloping ahead. Let's face it. We in Canada are probably not the ones who will be doing the cellulosic stuff anyway, since there are tons and tons of this stuff being produced in Brazil just as waste product.
But the one thing about biofuel.... It's ironic, because it ties back into what we were talking about concerning competitiveness. One of the solutions that's been proposed is that we just need to do what the U.S. and the EU do: pour a bunch of money into agriculture that's there every year to support our farmers. The problem is, as Brian said, that this becomes capitalized within a couple of years into the programs. The Americans have found this. I've talked to a lot of guys down in the States who were involved in the initial stages of it, and they have said they really thought it would be the panacea. They were getting money from.... They used to joke, “I just about went broke last year: my mailbox fell down, and I couldn't get the money from the government.” Then all of a sudden they didn't talk about its being an advantage any more, because it all became capitalized into the price of their land, into the price of all their inputs, and into the price of everything. So they lost that margin again, and now they need to have the government payment or they won't survive.
In Canada, we have never had that payment, so it hasn't been capitalized in. I won't call it an advantage—we're having to compete with those guys. For years we had American prices because of their subsidies depressing the price we were getting for grain. When biofuel came into the States, it rerouted the U.S. Farm Bill into their secure fuel policy, and we finally saw closer access to world prices in Canada for our feed grains—for barley, etc.—and for our oilseeds, with canola. That had something to do with the price rise we saw.
Indirectly, biofuels helped us in the States by routing their subsidy money, in a way, out of destroying pricing. And that's really the key: if we don't have direct price signals, as a farmer I can't make proper decisions.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thanks very much, Mr. Robertson.
We are finished our rounds, but let me ask one question, if I may.
Mr. Strankman, I know you've been trying to get in, and you can maybe address this.
I've talked to a lot of farmers. I have a fair bit of cash cropping in the south end of my riding, but I know there is a lot throughout southern Ontario—quite a bit in Mr. Shipley's riding. What they have continuously told me is that they use the Ontario Wheat Board as an option; it's another buyer in the marketplace. Some of them—in fact, most of them—will say they use it 30% to 35% of the time, but they want it as an option.
Is it the ultimate goal of the western barley grower to have that choice? Sometimes you get a mixed message out there. Is it the goal of your group to eliminate the Wheat Board or to basically have the choice to include them?
Could you touch on that a bit?
12:50 p.m.
Director, Western Barley Growers Association
Thank you so much for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I didn't have a written presentation and I certainly appreciate this.
Our goal is marketing choice. We feel that freedom is ours to attain. Producers can achieve more money to verify their production.
I'd like to reiterate my initial statement with regard to regulation. It seems we're so concerned about regulating, and it's always in a reactive form rather than proactive. My western red neck might be showing a little too much here. A former entrepreneur from the U.S. in charge of Chrysler at one time said you should lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. I'm of that vein.
While I have the mike I'd just like to comment to the gentleman in the corner. I believe he's concerned about the access to property. I've travelled to Brazil twice with a retired agriculture professor from Columbia College, St. Louis. The statement I came back with from this agriculture professor—and this is absolutely true—is that there is ground yet to be broken in Brazil that is equivalent to U.S. corn, soybean, and wheat growing areas that is not rainforest land and that is within 15 degrees of the equator. Should you decide to go down there rather than pontificate here, which I've been doing on the prairies.... I'd like to go down there and maybe avail myself of less regulation.
Thank you.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thanks very much, Mr. Strankman.
I've been accused of being a redneck myself the odd time, so I wouldn't take any offence at that.
At this point I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming. I think it was very informative. Thanks for sticking to the times. We really appreciate that.
We do have just a few minutes of government business.
Mr. Bellavance.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Chairman, if you have something to say, just go ahead. I simply wanted to make sure I would get the floor to discuss Committee business.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay, certainly. The business I referred to, Mr. Bellavance, was a motion from Mr. Atamanenko. I believe everybody has a copy of it; it was sent out on Friday.
Mr. Atamanenko, do you want to speak to it?
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
With regard to the calendar, is the Canadian Wheat Board on our schedule? In other words, have we set a time for Ian White and some directors to come in? I think people would like to talk to them. If not, maybe I'll just leave that with you.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
My understanding, Alex, is that nobody submitted the Wheat Board as a witness. Am I correct in that?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
You did? Okay then. My apologies, Alex, I didn't know you had. They haven't been scheduled yet, but we do have them, and they will be. We do know that a week from today--and one of the things dealing with your motion is that the Competition Bureau is here next Thursday. This Thursday we have two groups coming from Nova Scotia and one individual and one group from P.E.I. I'm not sure about next Tuesday.
Does that answer your question?
12:55 p.m.
NDP