Evidence of meeting #40 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
That's not a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the other point I should raise is that the....
3:45 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
No problem. We're used to it.
The other point I should make, Mr. Chair, which became evident last week, is that the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food's performance report for 2008-09 shows that under the business risk management section, the Government of Canada paid out $961,400,000 less than in the previous year. That's an eight-year low in terms of funding from the government under business risk management programs, at a time when the grain growers were saying it could be used in other ways and when the cattle and hog industries were saying that there's a desperate need for money in their industries. When we're losing the hog industry because of low prices, they're being asked instead to go out and gain loans.
There are ways in which AgriFlexibility and BRM programs together could accommodate AgriFlexibility to put money into farmers' pockets, and that's what we should be thinking about. This committee, of all committees, shouldn't be worried about the Department of Finance in its entirety. Yes, I know this government is spending my grandchildren's money, but in terms of regular government programs--
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, once again Mr. Easter talks out of one side of his mouth and then turns around and talks out of the other side. One minute he wants us to increase spending to farmers and the next minute he wants us to decrease spending as a government. He really does have to make up his mind on where he wants to go with this.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chairman, on Mr. Storseth's point, it's a matter of priorities. I would rather see us spend money on the farm community, which produces food for this country, and Alex's motion could--
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I wonder about the relevance of this speech. It's not really dealing with the motion that's before us. It seems to be rambling on.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
He's just filibustering like he did at the last meeting.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I think what I'm doing, Mr. Chairman—in fact, I know what I'm doing—is speaking in favour of this motion.
Government members argued, how could you include AgriFlexibility in business risk management? I'm making the point that it indeed can be. It indeed can be put to good use in assisting the grain industry, as well as the hog and beef industries, and maybe overcoming somewhat the disastrous spending by the Government of Canada in putting money towards the farm community, because clearly when business risk management is at an eight-year low, $961,400,000 less than the year before—and you know in your riding, Mr. Chair, that hog producers are in trouble—they could use that money rather than more loans.
My argument is simply that. It can be accommodated by the provinces. It can put money in producers' pockets. It can compensate somewhat for some of the disastrous decisions made by this particular minister, and it would assist the farm community. For all those reasons, I think this committee should support Alex's motion.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wholeheartedly support Alex's motion.
The reason I asked for a program review at the steering committee meeting and invited the witnesses who we were able to hear from Tuesday—officials from the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition—is that the programs put in place by the Conservative government do not fulfil certain promises that were made. I am speaking mainly of election promises. I am also talking about the budget, in which they announced a true Agricultural Flexibility Fund. That was not the case because income support was excluded.
You will recall, Mr. Chair, that we heard from numerous witnesses about the Agricultural Flexibility Fund. If I am not mistaken, the first people to talk about it were representatives from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. If they had copyrighted the name, they would make a lot of money on it. The government talked and talked, but what it finally put in place is not at all what the federation was hoping for.
I can answer the questions put by my Conservative colleagues, Pierre and Randy. Pierre wants to know where the money will come from and is asking Alex what should be cut to find money for the Agricultural Flexibility Fund. It was very clear, not only from the witness testimony, but also from the very beginning. Pierre is certainly no stranger to this. He has to know the answer.
Right now, there is a lot money for ad hoc programs. We will no longer need these ad hoc programs because risk management will be included in the Agricultural Flexibility Fund. It is just a matter of transferring funds, not cutting the funding of other programs or the department's budget.
As for the provinces, I do not think it is a constitutional change. Randy was saying that it would require everyone's permission. Currently, Ontario and Quebec have a farm income stabilization insurance program. With a real Agricultural Flexibility Fund—not the one implemented by the government—provinces would be able to use program funding as needed, for the programs they already have in place. In Quebec, it is a farm income stabilization insurance program. In Ontario, they call it RMP. I think other provinces also have income stabilization programs. For those that do not, it would work the same as other programs. It is always possible to withdraw from one program with compensation or to create a program in order to qualify for the Agricultural Flexibility Fund that would be set up. So that answers the questions that were asked.
Given this clarification, I am certain that we will vote unanimously in favour of Alex's motion.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I must admit, I am surprised that my colleagues on the other side are supporting the motion, because it's so vague.
I was asking Mr. Atamanenko exactly what he is talking about. Be more specific. It's more, well, the department will sort that out later.
I think I gave a very real example. Here in the province of Ontario the grains and oilseeds sector want their RMP as part of AgriFlex, but what about all the other commodities? What about all the other sectors? What do you think about that, Mr. Atamanenko? What does the committee think about that? This is such a bland motion. It's not bland; it's just that it's lacking in detail.
There's this whole idea of other provinces as well. Oilseeds and grains are very important to Ontario. They have their RMP program. What about the other provinces?
I don't think this committee is doing anyone any favours by passing a motion like this, which doesn't say anything except just throw it all in there and we'll sort it out later. I'm not sure that's in the best interests of farmers.
I'm also surprised that the committee is not more forward looking. We've had witnesses come in front of us to talk about the future of farming. The future of farming is based on innovation, it's based on higher productivity, and it's based on greater efficiency. And these are the types of initiatives that AgriFlexibility is focusing on.
I gave some examples in the last meeting about how AgriFlexibility improves the agricultural sector's competitiveness. I have a couple of examples here. The agri-processing initiative is receiving $50 million. Oftentimes, agri-processors are just left to their own devices, but here we're helping the agri-processing sector become more effective, more innovative, and more efficient. That actually helps farmers. If farmers' products can move from their farmgates to consumers' plates in a more cost-effective manner, a more efficient manner, and a more innovative manner, that helps farmers and it's forward looking. It's moving the agricultural industry ahead. We should have a program that helps. We have a program that helps, and it's AgriFlexibility.
We also announced $20 million for the federal livestock auction traceability initiative. This builds a vital link in the traceability chain, and it's hopefully going to track Canadian livestock from the grocery store right back to the farmgate. Farmers want help with this type of tracking. AgriFlexibility offers it to them, and again, it's looking forward. This will help farmers in the near to mid-term and in the long term. That's what AgriFlexibility is set up for. If it all just becomes BRM funding, then what is there to move the agricultural sector forward?
Other initiatives.... There has been $32 million announced for the federal Canada brand advocacy initiative, basically building the Canada brand and advertising it, especially in foreign markets so that other countries know to buy Canadian. “Canadian” means high quality. We make high-quality products here. Our farmers grow high-quality products. We should be promoting this in other countries. But if AgriFlex becomes a BRM program and that's it, then there's no funding with which to promote in other countries the good work that our farmers do. We should undertake initiatives like this. Farmers have asked for initiatives like this. As I mentioned as well, there were consultations done with different stakeholders in the agricultural community, and they have asked for a program like AgriFlexibility that looks forward.
So I must admit, Chair, I am surprised that my colleagues are not forward looking and instead they're stuck in the here and now.
The other point I want to make, Chair, is that we already have a full suite of business risk management programs. We have AgriInvest, we have AgriStability, we have AgriInsurance, we have AgriRecovery, and we have the advance payments program. There are very many programs and initiatives that are BRM-based.
It's somewhat as I mentioned yesterday, Chair, when our witnesses were here, that farmers want two things. They want a level playing field, but they want flexibility. The federal government is there to provide a level playing field. All of these programs that I just read are meant to do that. They apply in all provinces across Canada to the different sectors. They try to be as flexible as they can, but they provide that level playing field.
The provinces have the initiative to provide the regional flexibility that farmers are looking for. I gave the example of the grains and oilseeds sector. They want the RMP here in Ontario. That's perfect. The Province of Ontario should support that. It's a regional initiative that responds to a regional need. However, out in Saskatchewan I wouldn't want to tell them that they need to provide a certain program with certain constraints about it. They should be allowed some regional flexibility as well to better accommodate their agricultural sector and its needs.
There's nothing wrong with the federal government providing stability, a level playing field, the kind of BRM programming that I've already mentioned, and allowing the provinces to provide their own regional flexibility to better support or better respond to their own regional agricultural needs.
As I say, I'm surprised that my colleagues are in favour of this motion, because the motion goes against everything I just spoke about.
Thank you, Chair.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
I'll keep mine short because I think he pretty much talked about what I wanted to.
Alex, in the motion you have put forward...you talk about elections; I know Wayne did, and correctly so. We talked about AgriFlex, agricultural flexibility. Another thing that has been clear is that we are committed to that. The agricultural flexibility is about giving the flexibility to the provinces to run their programs and then us working in the non-business risk management parts.
I look at the grains and oilseeds under the RMP, and it's going be interesting. I know Mr. Easter brings up how good a program it is, and it is a good program. It's not 40% funded by the province; actually it's 100% funded by the province because it's a provincial program. It's like ASRA in Quebec. It is not 40% funded by the province; it's 100% funded by the province, because it's a provincial program. So those programs, quite honestly, reach into Ontario; they reach three or four grain commodities.
When I'm talking to a number of my producers, I am asking them what is more important right now. I can talk to the grain guys, because it's the RMP, and ask them how much they've gotten from the RMP over the last three years. The RMP is a program that is not costing the government much; it is only costing the producers, because the grain prices have been on the rise. They went up in 2008 and 2009 and they've settled back a bit. So there may be some collection, but it'll be interesting now to see whether the province continues with that pilot project, because it is their project.
It's also been clear under the APF that once the federal government becomes part of a program like that, it's countervailable. Now you're going to have all kinds of people from both sides--I guess that's what lawyers do--some saying they are countervailable and some saying they aren't. But we've been assured they are countervailable. I can tell you my producers do not want to have their money being spent on countervail.
I'm wondering, Alex, if you've had those talks and those considerations with the provinces about the concern of the countervail that's going to happen should they become part of a business risk management program, for example, such as we have in Ontario.
I wonder if you could comment.
4 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'll comment on both of the previous speakers, and I understand the concerns Bev has raised, and also Pierre.
I'll just start by saying that when I was first elected, we had this problem in Saskatchewan with drought. I remember that time there was a federal Conservative government and in Saskatchewan an NDP government. They were kind of throwing the ball back and forth, back and forth, to see who would be helping the farmers. There was no agreement. One was saying, “Well, it's the province; it should be the feds.” It was going back and forth, and I said to myself that something wasn't right.
I agree with what Pierre is saying; farmers want a level playing field.
The other point is that what my motion says is that this would be an eligible component. It doesn't mean that the whole AgriFlex program becomes business risk management. It's an insurance that we can help those producers, many of whom are being hit hard.
We always get this argument thrown back at us of countervail. Well, as a Canadian, I'm starting to get really angry at responses that are always, “Well, we can't do anything because the Americans are going to do this to us”, or “They're going to put a duty on us”. It's time, I think, for us--all of us--to stand up for farmers and to take responsibility and say that we have to do what's best for them.
Having said that, I have in front of me the Canadian Federation of Agriculture discussion points, and I think they lay it out clearly. They feel the federal and provincial governments should partner, creating and supporting “regional and commodity-specific agricultural investments, such as support for temporary declines in commodity prices, research and development initiatives, and production insurance enhancements”.
And then I'll just read one more paragraph: “AgriFlex will target funds to specific commodities and sectors in need.” And I think that's the key.
Recently, they say, horticulture producers have been hit “with a devastating combination of high labour costs and cheap imports due to the rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar”. The AgriFlex fund can help them weather that storm with a tailor-made solution that keeps them farming.
So the idea, if I understand it correctly—I've been trying to get this through my head over these last few years—is that it's kind of like an emergency fund that's there, that can be tapped into quickly if we need it, rather than trying to react to each situation and saying, “Well, Province, how much are you going to put in?” and “What should the federal government be doing?” By the time all these discussions take place, it's too late. We could be dealing with a drought in Saskatchewan, we could be dealing with a hailstorm in British Columbia, or we could be dealing with a decline in prices.
It's a component that could be there. And it's not up to us to work out the details. If we agree to it in principle, then it's up to those officials, the specialists, to work on the details so that we have something there in the future to help our farmers. I think we all want to help them; we just seem to disagree on how we should go about this.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Atamanenko, I'm confused by the question--or the answer. Until April of this year we worked under CAIS, a flawed program, quite honestly, which took away all those things you talked about. The agriculture policy framework of that...quite honestly, the Liberals negotiated away that flexibility that Canada once had. So when you get to the Doha rounds and the WTO, those conditions you talk about are not there.
But what we did is exactly what you have said. We brought in our business risk management. In fact, we worked with the provinces at the top to get AgriInvest in. We only agreed to bring in 1.5% of eligible net sales, but that's a component shared between the provinces, the federal government, and the producer. It sits there, and it's used for those times, actually, when the markets drop beyond, and they can trigger it to bring money out.
Then we brought in AgriStability. We refined what CAIS wasn't. It only started again this year. Why? Because the old CAIS program was not flexible in change. AgriStability has flexibility, to change things within it. In fact there are discussions about the triggering and how we can maybe make it more accessible in terms of triggering the funds.
Then we brought in AgriInsurance, AgriRecovery. You talked about those things. Those are actually the things that we've done, Alex, to try to accommodate those issues you raised by farmers.
On top of that, Mr. Easter talks about the $900 million. Well, actually, what we did is we put $600 million one time into the AgriInvest kick-start. That $600 million, thankfully, is there, and it started the program. For the other part of it, as I mentioned, thankfully, the price of grains has increased. So obviously as grain prices have increased, then some of the dollars that would be going out to AgriStability are not.
Quite honestly, we always hate to hear about disasters. There are some, but you know it's hard to budget in an agri-recovery program how much we're going to have for disasters. We've been fortunate. We've had some, and we had some money in for those, but not all of it was drawn.
Mr. Chair, I think we should get to the vote. I don't know if there are other....
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I think a number of things need to be cleared up, Mr. Chair.
Just on Bev's point on cancelling CAIS and going to AgriStability, the fact is that program.... Maybe the department pulled the wool over the eyes of the minister, I don't know. But the fact is that program will pay out less money to farmers. That's not what they need as a safety net. They need more money, not less. And that's what we're talking about here.
In terms of the AgriFlex program, I think what Alex's motion is attempting to get to is what the farm organizations proposed before the election and your party and our party picked up. So I would think that the AgriFlexibility program should have the flexibility to accommodate the business risk management program and ASRA, as was proposed to us the other day.
I want to come back to some of the points the parliamentary secretary talked about. He said the AgriFlexibility program is showing some success. That's debatable. The minister or someone in the system will decide where that money goes, but not much of it is going to primary producers. He talked about putting projects that would move to higher productivity. There's nothing wrong with that. None of us would disagree with higher productivity.
But let's look at it. Let's take a moment, guys, and look at what commodity in Canada has the best genetics in the world. The best productivity anywhere in the world, in terms of pork production, is in this country. It's in Canada. What's happening in that industry right now?
Brian likes to quote my report. Well, I'll give him a little quote out of the same report, “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace”, Mr. Chair. This makes my point.
When we look at our farms, every economic indicator is positive—production, revenue, exports, output per acre, output per farmer, cost per unit, etc.—every indicator, that is, except net farm income. Even as farmers produce more, export more, and produce more efficiently, farmers are rewarded less.... This is because the farm income crisis does not have its causes on the farm.
I express that because while AgriFlexibility may be doing great and wonderful things in terms of productivity, over time productivity hasn't been shown to be the problem. The industry that's most productive and efficient is hogs, and we're losing it. Neither business risk management nor AgriFlexibility is doing what it should do to keep Canadians on the farm. In fact, we're being displaced in the marketplace by American pork right now, and they're starting to use our genetics. So that's my point and that's why I think the farm organizations felt that AgriFlexibility should be used on the safety net side to give flexibility at the provincial level and assist with a risk management program or ASRA, or do some of the things that Pierre says other provinces might want to do. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, $500 million is not enough for AgriFlexibility to begin with, so it's certainly not enough....
Well, the business risk program--
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Alex says no. Alex says you don't need more federal funding.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The business risk program, Pierre--and you know this--can go up to about $4.4 billion. If you change the viability test, change the reference margins, change the negative margins levels, then you in fact could get money out to the community that needs it.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
