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.