Agriculture Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll call the meeting to order.

My apologies. I had it down as 3:30 and I had a school that I was meeting.

We move into committee business.

Mr. Bellavance, your motion is up first.

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

Yes, I was kidding, Larry. I said that on Tuesday, there were schoolchildren on the other side.

[An hon. member]

Schoolchildren in kindergarten.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I heard that when I go away...there's that old saying, when the cat's away, the mice play.

Please go ahead, Mr. Bellavance.

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

Mr. Chair, my motion has to do with the request I have made a few times to invite Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, to appear before the committee by video conference. He was scheduled to appear by video conference before the Standing Committee on International Trade on October 27, but it did not work out, unfortunately. I just wanted to pick up on it because the file involves sovereignty and food security. I thought it would give this committee and, through us, all farming stakeholders an opportunity to hear what he has to say and to ask him questions. Obviously, we would have to find a time when we are all available.

If our motion is adopted, the clerk could then speak with someone at Mr. De Schutter's office to see when he would have time for a one- or two-hour video conference. That was the essence of my motion, Mr. Chair.

I think you received a letter, as well. I got one; Mark and Alex probably did, too. It involves the people at the GO5 coalition. In fact, the initial request came from them. It said that Mr. De Schutter would be available for this. So I am moving the motion so we can respond to the request from the GO5 coalition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance. I think we should deal with the motion, and if it passes, which I suspect it probably will, then we'll try to find the time. I believe we have some time that we've left open at the end just before Christmas, so we can fill that out accordingly.

Discussion on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

I should just let the committee know that I tabled report number 5, I believe it was, which dealt with supply management and trade issues, and I believe, Alex, you were in the House this morning. So that has been tabled.

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

Thank you for doing that.

I will just read my motion: that the committee recommend the government include business risk management as an eligible component of the agriculture flexibility program, and that this be reported to the House.

This is a follow-up to the witness we had, and unfortunately I wasn't here due to weather conditions. One of the reasons for doing this is that AgriFlex, with the BRM component, would be a cost-sharing and risk-sharing partnership for farmers to weather the many ups and downs of agriculture markets, cost of production, and currency fluctuations. Another point is that this AgriFlex, with a BRM component, is a proactive program to support provincial programs that effectively address safety net issues, as opposed to an emergency ad hoc aid. It's a prudent measure. It would stretch existing government dollars much further. As our witness said, it does not require new federal money but would spend current funds more effectively.

At the federal-provincial-territorial meetings, the provincial ministers asked the federal minister to review federal business risk management programs. It would be an opportunity for us to recommend to the government that we show some leadership with our provincial counterparts. It's another way of trying to help farmers at this point in time, so they have a bit more of a guarantee of some assistance, rather than constantly looking for ad hoc programs and trying to find loans when it's difficult for them to do.

I would strongly recommend that we get support for this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

Is there further discussion on the motion?

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'll start by asking two questions.

First, Mr. Atamanenko says it would not need any new federal money. I'm just wondering what he's proposing, then, in terms of funding, and what his thoughts are, because right now I don't see how that can happen. I don't see how new BRM programs can be funded without there being any need for new federal money. There would have to be cuts somewhere, I would imagine.

Second, I'm wondering how he would see this being applied. The grains sector here in the province of Ontario is very keen on, for example, oilseed and grains being covered as part of AgriFlex; you know, that would be the RMP program. But I'm sure there are pork farmers who would love to see some sort of additional BRM programming for them. I'm convinced that in other parts of the country there would be yet other commodities that would like to have additional BRM funding.

Mr. Chair, I'm just going to put that out there. Maybe you'll allow Mr. Atamanenko to answer these questions. How would he see this actually rolling out on the level playing field, so to speak, that farmers seem to ask for?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Atamanenko?

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

Yes.

Basically, if we agree to the principle of this, then I think it's up to the department to work out how it could happen, if in fact it could happen; I'm not sure, exactly. The information I've received is that it wouldn't involve any new funding, based on the witness we had the other day. I have his brief in front of me.

I think we need to explore that, to look at the priorities and see if we can redirect priorities that are in the current budget to get better assistance to farmers and to be fair to all sectors, if we possibly can. I think those details can be worked out, providing there is a will from the committee to ask government to do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We now have Mr. Hoback, and then Mr. Easter.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Atamanenko, I have some questions in regard to this.

First of all, any changes to our AgriStability or AgriFlexibility programs have to be done in conjunction with the provinces; you understand that. I think we need seven out of eleven, or seven out of twelve, to agree before we can move forward on any type of changes.

Further to what Mr. Lemieux said, to have that type of program....

Pardon me?

I'm sorry, I didn't get the interpretation. Was that “kindergarten”?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

No.

If you have that type of program just for specific products or specific areas of the country, I don't think that's fair, and I don't think you'll see other provinces buy into that. It's a tough sell, a real tough sell, to see something like this come forward.

Back in the eighties, we had something called GRIP, which went across Canada. It got changed, and provinces pulled out of it because it was too expensive. They couldn't afford it. Saskatchewan was one of the first provinces to pull out of it.

As a farmer, I liked the program, but in the same breath, I recognize the fact that the provinces couldn't afford to keep it. I just see this as a similar process with BRM.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead, Mr. Atamanenko.

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

I guess my answer is that if the provincial ministers, at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings, have asked the federal minister to review federal business risk management programs, then I think that at least gives us the idea that they would like us to look at this. Obviously, we would have to see how we could coordinate that with the provinces.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

From what I understand, though, there has been no ask from the provinces, outside of Ontario and Quebec, to look at it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin, Mr. Chair, is the parliamentary secretary willing to table with us this secret subcommittee on the beef industry? He mentioned it three meetings ago now, I believe. Is he ready to table it today?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Chair, I said I would take it under advisement. It's not a secret committee, but I said I would take it under advisement. It's still being considered.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It must be. There have been four meetings now at which we haven't seen the committee....

Anyway, Mr. Chair, Randy mentioned in his comment that other provinces weren't in favour. That may be true at the ministerial level, but the fact of the matter is that the biggest farm organization in Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, came out and made a strong request for AgriFlexibility, to the point that both major parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, committed to an AgriFlexibility program during the last election.

It certainly was the view of the farm community, and certainly on our side, that AgriFlexibility would be used to act somewhat as a companion program to what provinces wanted. Some provinces would use it differently from others. In fact, as you would know, Mr. Chair, the Province of Ontario has come in and is just finishing up a pilot project on AgriFlexibility that has gone on for nearly three years. They have paid their 40%, but the federal government has failed to come up with their 60%, as was the intent of the program.

I think there is very strong support across the country for the AgriFlexibility program to be used to assist provinces in some top-ups according to how the provinces decide. It might be different in each of the provinces. We found that acceptable. The witnesses who were here the other day from the cash crop and grain industries in Ontario and Quebec certainly made the point that they're strongly supportive of AgriFlexibility moneys. There's supposed to be $500 million in the AgriFlexibility program that they are encouraging us to utilize. I think Alex's motion makes the point that the $500 million should go there. As I understand it, even from talking to some people in the public service at various levels, it seems that it's more likely to be used--and I know you wouldn't want to see this happen, Mr. Chair--as a slush fund for the minister. That's not what we want. We want the money go to farmers.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux has a point of order.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could Mr. Easter table the names of these people he's spoken to, the people who have provided him with this invaluable advice?