Agriculture Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

We have about five minutes left. We had decided to continue meeting until 6:00 p.m., but we will not have time for another round. If members who have not yet had an opportunity to speak would like to ask a short question, so that as many members as possible can question our witnesses, we could take these five minutes to--

Mr. Scarpaleggia or Ms. Bonsant, do you have any questions?

On the Conservative side, are there any questions?

I do have some questions. So I will use the remaining five minutes to ask my own questions.

Mr. Van Tassel, you said earlier that it took some time to compare the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program to the current programs—AgriStability and AgriInvestment—which replaced it. You were saying that you did not see a big difference in the way these programs are being implemented.

However, when they were introduced, the idea was to correct the problems associated with CAIS. Having been the agriculture critic back in 2005, I know that you, the grain producers, wasted no time coming to see us. In any case, you came to my office. The fact is that, because of the “Olympic” average, you were never able to access CAIS.

Everybody knew that. If you came to see me, as agriculture critic for my party, that means you also went to see everybody else. So, everyone must have been aware. Why, then, were changes never made?

[William Van Tassel]

The issue was declining margins. We still see the problem today, with respect to cattle. We are trying to solve it. It's the same thing for pork. It was the same problem several years ago. That's why I am saying that the two programs are similar. The only small difference relates to AgriInvestment and the first 15%—100% and 85%. However, the real problem is declining margins.

Could we introduce artificial margins, to be sure that something could be taken out? Possibly. But at the present time, you have to have a good production because of declining margins. Production may be very good for several years and then decline. I will give you the example of potato production. Although I am not a potato producer, I believe that, through this program, it would likely be possible to make a living from that production.

However, when you've been through two or three years of bad weather, it doesn't work anymore. That was the problem previously and it's the same problem today. That's why I'm saying that it's pretty much the same program.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

You also referred to the fact that with ad hoc programs, several million dollars may be invested in one-time initiatives. As I recall, you suggested that, if a truly flexible program were in place, which is what AgriFlex was supposed to be—a program that would apply to ASRA in Quebec and programs in Ontario and the other provinces—these ad hoc programs would no longer be necessary.

That means that the same money would be paid into AgriFlex—money that, in any case, is now being used to fund what could be called “disaster” programs. These are one-time programs put in place at a given time because of a specific situation, and under which the government provides financial assistance to mitigate the problems. You are saying that it would ultimately be no more costly to introduce a truly flexible program than to operate the way we are now.

[William Van Tassel]

It would probably cost less. We looked at Statistics Canada sources and noted that ad hoc payments—which are payments in addition to those made under CAIS—average $2.5 billion year. That represents about $1.5 billion for the federal government. We have suggested taking $1 billion of that amount to fund a program that would really meet people's needs.

What is better? An ad hoc program funded using $1 billion from outside that would be added on to ANS, or allowable net sales, or what we are proposing? As a general rule, people who are doing better have higher allowable sales. How does that work? Does that solve the problem? Hardly, because the person who needs it most gets none. That's why we are calling for a specific program that really resolves the issues. And that program is AgriFlex.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

Thank you very much. That is all our time for today. We are very pleased that you were able to provide your testimony, even though you had to witness some tussling. That happens in politics. What matters is the good news, and the good news is that you were able to provide your testimony and that we were able to hear what you had to say on the subject.

[William Van Tassel]

Thank you very much. It was very interesting.

It was a very interesting afternoon.

This meeting is adjourned.