Agriculture Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, we did.

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

Oh, you did. And the farmers were delighted with...[Inaudible--Editor]

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I could get into the point on AgriInvest and AgriRecovery. Our experience with AgriRecovery, Mr. Chairman, has been.... It's certainly not a disaster program. But we'll not get into that.

My bottom-line point is, I support this motion. It's what the farm organizations have asked for. And I think our fundamental focus here should be to assist the farm community that's in trouble. Why the government is so resistant to supporting farmers, I don't know. Yet it can be supportive of a minister who would basically allow a business risk management program to pretty nearly take $961,400,000 right out of their pockets. It's shameful.

Anyway, I support the motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Atamanenko, I did have you next on the list, but you spoke to Mr. Shipley. Do you still want on there?

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

I'll just make one quick comment. I think the very fact that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is an umbrella organization that represents farming organizations right across this country, supports this.... If we have people in the grains and oilseeds sector who are appearing and saying that this is important, I think it should raise a flag. This is a flexibility program; it's a component of a program. It's an insurance, in my words, to make sure that we can help our farmers get through these tough times when they can't, as they move on to do all these wonderful things and take part in all these other programs that are there that Pierre had mentioned. It's not either/or. We need to have our farmers on a level playing field and we need to help them stand up. As one pork producer said in our committee a number of meetings ago, help us compete with foreign governments. And that's what we have to do. It's our obligation to help our farmers compete with foreign governments, specifically the U.S. government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Hoback, and I'm then going to call the vote.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I just want to respond to some of the things that have been mentioned. Mr. Atamanenko was talking about needing money for disasters and unforeseen circumstances, but that is what AgriRecovery is for. When a disaster occurs, there is a close cooperation that takes place between the federal government and the province affected to determine if AgriRecovery replies, and then there is actually a payout if there is agreement that it was a disaster in a specific region or in a specific industry. So there is already a BRM program called AgriRecovery, and farmers receive money through that programming. I think it's important to highlight that.

I think the second thing we need to do, particularly as this is an open public meeting...I think Canadians need to be aware, if they're listening in, that Mr. Easter just presents the information he wants to present, even though he knows why it is the way it is. I'll just give you an example, Chair. He keeps mentioning the BRM and this missing amount, this certain amount of money that's not in BRM, and somehow the Conservatives have taken it away. But Mr. Easter knows, Mr. Chair, that the BRM programs are based on demand. It's not just cheques that fly out to the farmgates whether there's a need or not; it's based on demand. Over this past year, the grains and oilseeds sector has done okay. So there was a certain amount of money budgeted under BRM that was not needed. It's no more complicated than that. So government payments went down to BRM.

Although there were natural disasters that had to be addressed through AgriRecovery, there were fewer natural disasters than were forecasted. So again, Chair, the demand was down. If these programs are based on demand--and they are based on demand, and Mr. Easter knows they're based on demand--then his argument is really an invalid argument. What he's saying with his comment is...he's identifying that demand is down. That should be a good thing. If demand is down, that means farmers are doing better. I can tell you that our Growing Forward program has been much better received than the Liberal CAIS program, which was criticized from one end of the country to the other. Mr. Easter likes to distort things again and say, they took all these factors into consideration and the plan they tabled was an absolute failure. Farmers across the country hated CAIS, and they were actually pleased that the Conservative government took the initiative, did away with CAIS, and replaced it with the Growing Forward program.

I think people need to be aware that these types of things have reasons. There are reasons behind the headlines that Mr. Easter seeks.

The other thing I want to bring up is the pork sector, which he mentioned. We know as MPs and we know as a committee that the pork sector is indeed in a crisis. But Mr. Easter's criticism is that we should just do a per head payment. He knows that a per head payment would lead to a countervail, which would in fact further harm the industry. He knows that, but he doesn't choose to say it. He goes for the headline of just criticizing because a per head payment wasn't done. Actually, if a per head payment was done, he would then grab the next headline, which would be criticizing the government for having done a per head payment when they should have done something else. He just hops from headline to headline when in fact he should know better.

The other thing I want to raise, Chair, is that with all of these programs, I think the government has to be very careful that they do not distort the market. I'll just give an example with the hog industry again. The hog industry has grown dramatically in the past decade within Canada. There are right now too many hogs in Canada for the market. We're trying to open foreign markets to our hog farmers. That's good. We're trying to expand the market to hog farmers. But there are still too many hogs in Canada, and the industry knows this. If Mr. Easter spoke to or listened to some of these associations like the Canada Pork Council, he would know that they're saying, yes, the industry realizes that there are too many--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I hope I'm going to be given a couple of minutes to respond to the errors....

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I have you on the speakers list.

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

I know he's being defensive because I've got him. I've pinned him down now and he has to react with something.

Mr. Chair, the hog industry knows there are too many hogs in Canada; it's just Mr. Easter who doesn't know it. The problem is that if the government pushes out money to sustain the hog market at the size it is at right now, it's not actually helping the hog industry in the long run.

That's why the programs we announced--because the program itself is made up of three key components--were done in collaboration with the pork industry. So we're actually working with the pork industry, Chair, to address their needs as they exist today. But we want to do it in a way that does not distort the reality. Simply pushing money out and falsely sustaining the size of the herd when the herd is too big would be the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to put in place programs that actually help pork farmers.

How was our program received, Chair? I can give you a quote. The president of the Canada Pork Council, Mr. Preugschas, said “We think it's going to make a huge difference.” Curtiss Littlejohn, the Ontario Pork Producers representative, says “These three programs provide options and choices for producers and ultimately will help to rightsize the industry.”

These are the kinds of comments that we're getting back from the pork industry. I'm not saying it's going to be an easy transition, Chair. As I mentioned before in a previous meeting, it's fine that the industry knows that the hog sector has to grow smaller, but when it comes down to the actual farmer who has to decide if his farm and his business are viable or not, that is a very personal, very emotional, and very difficult decision. But at the level of government programming, we have delivered the right programs. We have delivered what the pork industry asked for and they are happy with it. I just read you some quotes. Mr. Easter, of course, will criticize that, but he is actually criticizing the pork industry in doing so.

So I think it's important, Chair, to bring this back to AgriFlexibility. AgriFlexibility is targeted where it should be targeted. It is targeted to enhance productivity and innovation and to move the agricultural sector forward into the future. For this reason, AgriFlexibility should stay the way it is, and I'll be voting against the motion because of that, Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was looking for a letter in my BlackBerry that I got today from a group of pork producers. I can't find it, but it's just as well, because I wouldn't be able to use the language; it's not parliamentary language that the producers were saying relative to this government program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's never stopped you before.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, let's deal with a couple of points here so that we are dealing with facts.

[An hon. member]

You could table it later, if you want.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I'll get a hard copy and I'll table it at the next meeting, Mr. Chair. I think you should see it.

[An hon. member]

I hope the date is right on it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I've talked to one of the individuals you've quoted--Mr. Littlejohn--and he is not enamoured of the quotes you're expressing. He made them, but he's not so sure any more, and he certainly doesn't like being quoted in the propaganda campaign that you guys think this program is any good.

But the first point I would make, Mr. Chair, is that the parliamentary secretary went on at great length that the money is triggered when there's a need. Yes, that's true. However, the money is utilized when the rules are established that the money can in fact be triggered. And the rules haven't been changed to allow the beef and hog industry to utilize business risk management in the last couple of years.

I just don't know where the members opposite have been. There are somewhere around 3,000 beef producers out of 4,400 in Ontario who don't qualify, Mr. Chair, because they don't meet the viability test. The safety net program is useless to them because they can't trigger the money. That's prevalent right across the country. They've had two years of negative margins, so they no longer qualify.

As witnesses before us expressed a week ago, that's easily changed if the government would come to its senses and make some changes. It's not in violation of the WTO, so it could assist the industry in many respects.

On AgriStability, Mr. Chair, the judgment is certainly out, as I've said at this committee a number of times, and by this time next year we'll know. I think the members opposite will be quite disappointed when they find out that they've been had by someone in the senior bureaucracy, in that AgriStability won't even pay out as well as CAIS did. It's going to be a sad day for members opposite, I know, but it's the reality of the world, and some of the producers whose cheques have rolled out are already indicating that.

On the parliamentary secretary's point on a per head payment, that could have worked. It has been done in the past. The previous Liberal government had I think 11 programs for the beef industry during the BSE crisis. I believe three of them were per head payments of various kinds, with no challenges from the Americans. For one of the programs, I will admit there was a problem in which the packing industry managed to, in my view, basically steal $550 million right out producers' pockets, in the way the program ran. But keep this in mind, Mr. Chair: when Parliament moved on a motion on those companies after we had studied them extensively, we didn't get unanimous consent in the House. Why? Because the current Minister of Agriculture voted against that committee recommendation in the House. He didn't want to take on the big companies at the end of the line. That was why we didn't get to where we wanted to.

I guess the last point I would make is—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

On a point of order: relevance.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The relevance of this last point, Mr. Chair, is in refuting the misinformation from the parliamentary secretary, who indicated that all I was interested in was per head payment. That's not the case at all.

What I've indicated through my remarks, time and time again, is that the current program, which has paid out $961,400,000 less, could be utilized to do what needs to be done in the hog and beef industries by changing the reference margins, the viability tests, and maybe increasing the negative margins or allowing negative margins. There are a number of areas there. To the point of this debate, allowing AgriFlexibility to be used in that program for business risk management and ASRA and whatever the other provinces want to do with it would be trade-allowable, in my view. Those points, Mr. Chair, should correct the record. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can take that message back to the minister, and maybe they could deal with this effectively and do something for farmers rather than for the Treasury Board.

There is one other point, Mr. Chair. He talked about the programs they have implemented and he delivered a couple of quotes claiming how wonderful they are. The fact of the matter is--and you've heard me say this in the House, Mr. Chair--what the program does in terms of additional loans to producers is that in effect.... Currently the APP loans are out there for last year. The government has put that money out to producers under the APP. We felt it was one avenue to pursue if the market turned around, but the market didn't turn around. That money went out there by APP on secured loans. There were some personal guarantees, yes, by producers to the government.

The new proposal allows producers, if they have a viable operation, to go to the lending institutions, such as farm credit unions and banks, and obtain a new loan, but the first condition of that loan is that they must pay back the government on the APP. I've called it a Ponzi scheme. What you have is a situation in which the Government of Canada is providing a guarantee to producers so they can get new money at lending institutions. It is guaranteed by the Government of Canada, but it now has security on assets; the banks have to do the dirty work of the foreclosure, and the government--Treasury Board and the Department of Finance--get paid back on their liability, which is unsecured.

If ever I heard of a Ponzi scheme, that's a good one. Either the minister or the guys opposite had the wool pulled over their eyes by Treasury Board and the Department of Finance, because the only one that really gains out of that situation is the Government of Canada.

We all know that in terms of the sell-offs, the lowest seller gets to sell his operation. What an inhumane scheme. They bid against each other for lower and lower prices to get out of an industry that, as I pointed out earlier, has about the best genetics in the world and the best productivity in the world. This government is asking you to bid against each other for a pittance so that you can leave the industry with lost hope and in despair. That's not good government programming, in my mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead, Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do want to set the record straight on a few things. I can assure you that I will get to the essence of the motion and why I disagree with it in a minute. I would also like to tell Mr. Easter that in my hometown, my home county, we had about 93 hog producers, 90 of which went out of business under his watch. So I do refute his sincerity when it comes to our producers.

I'm glad he brought up his....

Well, you can swear all you want in the committee room, Mr. Easter, but that doesn't make your argument any better.

I would like to look at his “Empowering Canadian Farmers” report that he did in 2005. I would like to quote page 5, where he said “Farmers want to be empowered in the marketplace.” He was for it before he was against it.

He also said--and this is page 31, if you'd like to follow along--“That governments consult primary producers and their representatives in the design and review of farm support programs.” Our minister has done that. Then he said “That governments evaluate the cost impact of new regulations and policies on producers.” Our minister has done that and continues to do that. Actually, Mr. Chair, our minister was in your riding and several ridings all across this country consulting producers on the impact.

I'm now on page 32: “That the federal government improve Canada's pesticide licensing process and specifically the performance of...(PMRA).” Our minister has done that.

Next, “Those Canadians governments pursue bilateral and regional trade agreements to provide more targeted market access for Canadian products.” Apparently, once again, he was for this before; he is now against it.

Then, “That governments preserve and enhance research into primary agriculture, particularly at the regional level, and that research results be released to producers in a timely manner.” Our minister has done that. Once again, he was for it before he started voted against all these things.

The next one, “That governments support research and funding for niche markets....” Our minister has done that.

Next, “That governments undertake campaigns to educate citizens about the benefits provided to the country by Canadian agriculture.” Our government undertakes these campaigns and Mr. Easter tries to make headlines by calling them partisan.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

It seems the only good points the minister has adopted are those that I recommended. That's good. I'm pleased with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I don't think that's a point of order.

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

I'll continue: “That the federal government act to differentiate 'made-in-Canada' food products from those products merely processed in Canada.” Once again, he was for it, he tried stealing it, and now he's against it again.

Then, “That the federal government ensure that young farmers have access to the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperative Loans Act (FIMCLA).” Our minister did it, but Mr. Easter tried filibustering it in committee because he didn't like who was chairing the committee at the time.

Next, “That governments allow producers to shelter a portion of their earnings in good years, and withdraw them in lean years.” That's AgriInvest. Our minister has done that. Mr. Easter was for it before he was against it.

Then, “That governments eliminate succession and estate taxes...on primary producers.” We have moved on this.

Next, “That governments invest in improving and maintaining highways and railways, increasing maritime container capacity; preserving and expanding research facilities.” More than ever our government is doing this. Mr. Easter was for this, while his government did nothing on it. Now he's against it while our government actually accomplishes something.

Then, “That governments invest in slaughterhouse infrastructure to increase slaughter capacity.” I find this really very interesting because once again he was for it before he was against it.

Next, “That governments invest in infrastructure to produce renewable fuels from agricultural crops, particularly bio-diesel and ethanol.” For it before he was against it.

Next, “That governments assure that child-care is extended to parents who choose to stay on the farm while raising their young children.” That sounds an awful lot like what our government did in the beginning of our tenure.

Then, “That governments enhance internship programs to provide opportunities for young people seeking careers in rural professions.” I can tell you, as a member from rural Canada, our government has accomplished somewhat on this.

Then, “That governments provide financial support to students returning to work in farming communities...who cannot repay their student loans immediately.” An example is the expanding scholarships and increasing the millennium scholarships, which our government has done.

Next, “That governments make it easier for primary producers to hire seasonal workers.” This program was pretty much non-existent before we got into power. Now that we're doing something on it, Mr. Easter is against it.

Next, “That governments consider implementing an Alternate Land Use Services....” Our minister is looking at this.

Mr. Chair, I find it quite disturbing the total hypocrisy that Mr. Easter brings to this. You know, this was a man who was a respected minister in a former government who pays little to no attention to agriculture issues anymore. He's more concerned about going under most of the doors in this place and talking about scandals than he is about actually addressing the problems that farmers have in a constructive manner.

He talks about--and this is something that I really find disturbing--the $550 million that big industry, the slaughter industry, stole. They didn't steal it. The Liberal government handed it to them because they put no caps on anything they did. They're the ones who neglected our farmers; they're the ones who neglected our cow-calf producers; they're the ones who neglected our family farms for over a decade. He was right there with his hand on the wheel, and then he turns around and says, “Well, I really didn't like what we were doing, I just voted for it all the time.”

Mr. Chairman, once again, I was really disturbed to see a couple of weeks ago.... When the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and others came to us asking for $25 million, and I agree we need to reduce the regulatory burden.... But Mr. Easter would once again like to cut a $10 million cheque to Cargill. He really does not learn anything from the lessons. Maybe that's why the Liberal Party, the official opposition, is in the tank in the polls, and maybe Mr. Valeriote would be a good replacement for him at the ag committee.

Now to the motion. I do believe that Mr. Atamanenko is sincere in wanting to help farmers. We have had good discussions on this. I do disagree with the way he wants to go about it. I disagree with the NDP's position on free trade and international trade agreements that we're trying to participate in, such as Colombia. These are things that will help our producers. As general as this motion is, as the parliamentary secretary has said, it really does lead to a lot of misdirection and very little guidance, because a province like Alberta is bound to be discriminated against under such a motion. The Province of Alberta has worked very hard with the federal government, no matter what stripe, trying to work within the programs. It is going to be punished under this. It's not going to receive the same amount of funding as provinces such as Ontario, Quebec, and other provinces. I would suggest that P.E.I. would be in the same situation, but Mr. Easter has once again shown that he's not that concerned about that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.