Agriculture Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We have half a minute left. Does anybody want to add anything to that?

[Paul Mayers]

While I'm talking about it, probability is very important. There is, of course, the potential for high levels of infestation or very low-level prevalence. What we seek to do is, of course, detect. However, it is important to understand that detecting a low-probability event will be difficult to replicate. This committee is very familiar with low-probability events, such as in the case of BSE and the challenges that individual positives present in that regard. It doesn't mean those positives aren't real, but it is a very low-probability event that's being responded to.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much.

We're going to go to Mr. Atamanenko now, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry I was late; I was tied up in the House. Unfortunately, I missed the testimony of the witnesses before you folks, but from the notes I have and from your testimony, it's clear there has been a lot of hard work done to help our farmers and to ensure that if this happens in the future we react and do what we can.

However, I understand from my calculations that the $13 million allocated to the 21 farmers in Quebec works out to roughly $600,000 per farmer, yet in their testimony the AMA-Terre group say that “ÉcoRessources Consultants has proposed the partial budget method, but it has not been selected by governments.” I would like to know what that is.

Also, they say that “governments have adopted a method based on an evaluation of the financial costs of recovery based on a model for the transition from potato production to grain corn production”.

I have a letter here from Mr. Gemme.

With your permission, I will quote part of it. It says:

The amounts we have been offered are not in line with our reality. [...] We have been patient and tolerant, and we have respected the recommendations because we trusted them. Our trust was broken by inaction and a lack of sympathy for our cause.

According to your statement, $600,000 was given to each of these individuals to support them. However, Mr. Gemme's letter and the report on today's meeting suggest that may not have been enough. Would you please comment on that?

[Greg Meredith]

That's for me, I think. Thank you for the question.

Let me clarify one small piece that's important. The total compensation that would be on the table, if the $5 million were accepted, would be about $600,000, plus or minus a bit, per producer. The $5 million has not been agreed to. It's the source of fairly significant discussions between the industry and ourselves.

The methodology you referred to that we are using, if I can lay the foundation for my answer, is this. We have several programs at the outset that work together. We try to look at gaps in support when we're applying AgriRecovery so that we're not compensating twice for the same thing. With the Quebec government, we use a model that it has put together about what a model corn farm would look like—because we had to choose a target.

By way of example, how would you get from here to there over, say, a three-year period? We looked at such issues as carrying costs and new investment; land rental, if you had to expand your arable land in order to produce the same income, because the yield per acre is lower on corn than potato; advisory services and consultant assistance that would be required to make that transition. And we came up with the $5 million number overall for the 21 farms.

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

In your opinion, if in fact this $5 million were agreed to, should that sufficiently compensate the farmers? Is that sufficient?

[Greg Meredith]

Well, this is what our federal and provincial governments have agreed to.

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

What has the feedback been from the farmers affected?

[Greg Meredith]

Well, I don't want to speak for them, but I could say in all honestly that there's been a great deal of dissatisfaction with that offer.

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

Is it because of the model, or is it the actual amount?

[Greg Meredith]

Again, at the risk of speaking for them, I think there's one issue that has created quite a gap between our perspectives on it--the perspective of government versus industry. Our model is a three-year model for transition, and I think the industry was more interested in a 10-year model, which comes up to a fairly significant amount of money, in the range of $30 million or so.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

That's it. Thank you very much.

Mr. Storseth, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back. We have the Auditor General here today saying there are some problems with your approach when it comes to plant and plant product imports. We have witnesses here today, who have had something like 40,000 samples taken on their farm, none of which have come back positive. And CFIA is sitting here saying there is absolutely no chance--zero chance at all--that there was a mistake made on their part. Zero chance.

I have letters from a CFIA national manager saying it's great news, we haven't seen any problems yet; we've taken all these tests, and it's great that you haven't had any further positives, but at the end of the day, you could still be regulated for the next 40 years. This is ludicrous.

I am 100% behind what you guys do in making sure we do a good job when it comes to this. But to sit here and say.... I mean, this is affecting the lives and livelihoods of a generational farm, which quite frankly we don't have enough of in our part of the world. We're telling them we're going to look after them, but there's probably a low-level sample that's just not detectable. And the answer from CFIA is, well, we're going to keep looking at it, and we'll get back to you if we ever find anything.

I want to know when these guys are going to get their farms back. If you need to take more samples, by all means; the producers are willing to be as reasonable as possible here. But if you can't find anything, there has to come a time when you say there may have been a mistake. And if you don't want to admit there was ever a mistake, deregulate their farms so they can get back to dealing with the Department of Agriculture on how they're going to move forward with this.

This is affecting these people's lives, and they need answers. Quite frankly, the answers they've been getting from CFIA are not acceptable. Saying you'll get back to them in July or you'll get back to them whenever is not acceptable. They need to know, and they need to know soon.

[Cameron Prince]

Certainly we understand what these findings mean for these producers. We certainly empathize with their situation. We also are doing our very best to move this forward as quickly as we possibly can.

We are not alone in this decision-making. We are clearly very closely linked with the U.S., and Mexico to some degree. We have to have these agreements with these countries nailed down so that we can move forward.

I think that's the juncture we're at now. We have--

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

Mr. Prince, I don't mean to interrupt you, but time is of the essence.

You continue to talk as if this farm has PCN. All the evidence that has come forward today, and even the nodding of your own heads, suggests to me that not everybody around this room is convinced that this farm even has PCN. That is the issue here.

When you're talking about international agreements and all the rest of this, nobody's arguing with you about that. But when you're talking about a farm that you have taken over 40,000 samples from--you went to the exact footage of the area where you got the original samples and you've taken massive tests--and you still can't find anything, there has to be another way forward. It's been years now, and these guys have the next 10 years to worry about this.

[Cameron Prince]

Yes, I understand.

[Paul Mayers]

We absolutely agree that there has to be clarity going forward. In fact, that's exactly why, in the negotiations with the U.S, the issue of clarity on how you remove controls was a particular focus. And we have that now.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayers, but when are these guys going to get their farm back?

[Paul Mayers]

The answer is, with two negative test results from two separate intensive surveys. We have that clarity. We are already gearing up to hit the ground in terms of doing that survey work so we can get these farms out of regulatory control as soon as we possibly can, because we fully agree with you.

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

On these farms where you cannot find an infection level, are you then going to make it public? As our producers here said, and as Mr. Van Boom said, it sure would help with all the rest of the people that they rent land from and deal with if they're in some way exonerated on this if you cannot find further evidence.

[Paul Mayers]

That is the entire aim of the removal of controls. It is to be in a position, to be clear, and to state to whoever is interested in the information that these fields—and it's even not just farms, it's right down to fields—are no longer subject to any regulatory controls as it relates to PCN. That's our aim.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much.

That ends this round of questioning. We still have a few minutes. If it's all right with the floor, Mr. Bellavance wants a short question unless there are any complaints.

We'll let you have a few minutes to ask your question. Maybe we'll do a couple of short snappers and see how it goes.

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Like Alex, I had to be in the House to take care of another matter. I am pleased to have the opportunity to hear today's witnesses.

Mr. Meredith, you have mentioned several figures, and we have gotten the impression that the government gave $30 million to potato producers in Saint-Amable.

I was there in 2006 when the former minister of Agriculture, Chuck Strahl, went to the UPA's annual general meeting in Quebec City to announce $5.4 million for agricultural producers to compensate them for the problems they were having in Saint-Amable. Producers received $1 million less than $5.4 million—$4.4 million. The money was distributed through CAIS, but now it goes through Agri-Stability.

You mentioned that the department covered some costs. In 2006, the committee submitted a report saying that there has to be an ad hoc program because the existing programs were not effective. We know that programs like AgriStability and AgriRecovery are all basically the same. They replaced the CAIS program.

You also said that the proposed agreement was not signed, and I am glad you mentioned that. Five million dollars was supposed to go to 21 farmers, and you said that was $600,000 each. I am not sure how you came up with that number. By my math, it would be $238,000 each if the agreement is ever signed. Explain that number for us, because the farmers and I are not getting the same number as you. I do not think that they have seen a penny of that $30 million yet.