Evidence of meeting #16 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farm.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Right, so cashflow will be up, cashflow will be down, but overall you have a more optimistic outlook when you look at....
3 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, when I started here I had three levels: if everything goes right, if everything goes wrong, and somewhere in the middle.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
3:05 p.m.
As an Individual
You asked about cashflow. I think our business is all about risk mitigation. I look at myself as a risk manager. You've got production risk, and we can deal with that through crop insurance. I think some significant changes could be made to enhance that, because essentially it hasn't changed in 60 years.
The only area where we can do forward pricing is on contracting. There are a lot of things we can do there, but the challenge we have is, how far do you want to forward-contract? Three years ago, we should have contracted three years' worth of crops. Who knows where we'll end up? In this local area, in the last eight years, we've seen 30-bushel soybeans and we've seen 60-bushel soybeans, so how far do you want to leverage yourself? That extra 30 bushels makes all the difference on what kind of year you're going to have this year, and probably the next year, if you work forward.
That's why I would like to see a market revenue sort of insurance scheme again. I know you didn't want to talk about programming, but the current programs we have now, not just on BRM, are a lottery. Look at traceability. All the applications had to be in on March 1 by 9 o'clock, and by 3 o'clock the money was spent. That's a lottery. Look at the Canada-Ontario farm stewardship program. To me, that was a lottery. The applications went in--and I didn't get anything last year because I was three weeks late. The money was spent within three weeks. There's something wrong with a program when it gets taken up that quickly. It ends up that you've got neighbours who are still competing for the same piece of dirt, trying to do the same thing, but one person, through the lottery, ended up with $30,000 and the other person ended up with nothing. To me, that's a problem in the programming. It's not fully funded.
I think there's fully funded programming when they're environmentally sound, or for traceability, or this sort of thing; that should be the case. But I would go one step further. Having been an IP and a seed producer for 15 years, I'm not sure the government should be in the traceability business. The marketplace should do that. It did it in soybeans. When it comes to livestock and animal production, I'm not sure the marketplace shouldn't be putting those traceability programs in place, if they need it, because it would be suited for their needs, not for the government regulatory needs or someone at CFIA. I think the CFIA could be doing a much better job with what it has available. If it was out of the Fertilizer Act business of trying to register inoculants and soil amendments and that sort of thing, it could concentrate on just imports and setting standards that are globally competitive for us.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you.
We've had one full round, and we have some time left, so we're going to try to get everybody in again for a question.
There is one question that I'm going to take the liberty of asking from the chair.
Steve, you touched on it when you made a comment in your opening remarks about there being too many jurisdictions, ten provinces and the feds. One obstacle I know that farmers in Ontario have seen is the business risk management that's proposed. The only way this can ever happen from a federal standpoint is to have seven provinces. So recognize that.
Also, Greg, you mentioned it. Basically, what you're suggesting is getting rid of the federal ag department altogether and letting the provinces run it. That's what you said. Really, what I'd like to know is, from the two of you, how do we actually do that? These are historical federal-provincial agreements. It doesn't mean they can't be changed, but I think the provinces never want to give up control of anything, and maybe the feds can be guilty of that same thing. I just want to have an idea of how you'd actually do what the two of you suggested.
Greg.
3:05 p.m.
Owner, Cedarline Greenhouses
I didn't want to get rid of the fed ag department; I just wanted it to focus on something different, and let the provincial ag department focus on something else. We've got so many different things. The frustration with the fed-prov agreements, and ten provinces.... How many times have the faces changed around the table every time you have a fed-prov agriculture ministers meeting? There's an election happening somewhere in a province and the focus becomes different. Then when you're trying to push forward, you need 50% of the ag GDP and 50% of the numbers that are equal to seven provinces to make any kind of substantial change. It's difficult, because the focus becomes much different depending on the....
I just think it becomes a waste of everybody's time sitting around talking about movements not going forward on business risk management, for example. We were talking about business risk management way before I got into farm politics, and it seems we'll be talking about it way after any of us are still involved in farm organizations.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I realize the issue and the problem, Greg, but how do we get there?
We know, with what you're talking about, it has to be seven provinces. That's the way it has to be. Whether that's right or wrong, that's the way it is.
3:10 p.m.
Owner, Cedarline Greenhouses
I'm not sure what the breakdown is in the budget; I'm just talking blue skies here. But if the federal government got out of the direct support programming and told the provinces it would take this aspect away that they were currently paying for and make it a federal responsibility, if it said, “Now that you're relieved of that portion of cost that we're going to take on, that will give you more flexibility in Ontario to deal with your livestock industry, the grain and oilseeds industry, and the horticulture industry as you see fit”--to me, that makes the most sense.
As a perfect example, I was part of the Grain Growers of Canada when it first got established. It's a great group of people, and I still respect them highly. But somebody who's in the grain business in Saskatchewan has a different point of view and grows very different crops than we grow in Ontario when we're competing with the United States of America. So the business risk management aspect of it all is going to be different.
How can we expect someone from Alberta or Saskatchewan to agree on the same kind of programming that is going to meet the needs of Ontario grain and oilseeds producers? It just ain't gonna happen, right? Yet we're hamstrung because of the framework that the federal BRM programming has put forward.
3:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I think things like PMRA should take total responsibility for all pesticide registration and get it out of the provincial jurisdiction. Similarly, when it comes to business risk management programs, it should be totally a provincial jurisdiction. That's not to say that the federal government can't contribute a certain historical share of the funding to that, but how it gets spent should be left locally up to each jurisdiction, and they can concentrate strictly on the import testing and that sort of thing on a national level.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We're going to move to three-minute rounds. That will give you a question and you'll be able to get an answer.
Mr. Eyking.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to continue on where Steve and Greg are going here. I know it sounds different from the status quo, but because one way or another we have to help farmers across this country, what if the federal government were to adopt an approach similar to that involved in the health transfer of funds?
Right now, the federal government gives so much to Ontario and Nova Scotia, right across, and they administer provincial health care. The federal government right now says what it's trying to achieve is that if somebody goes into the hospital in Halifax or Toronto, that person receives roughly the same sort of care across this country.
I'm just throwing out numbers, and they're not exact, but if they went on that basis, right now let's say the provincial government spends $1 billion on programs; you're alluding to that $1 billion being given to the provinces, but under what stipulations?
You have trade regulations. They would have to have some sort of arrangement, and they would say that each province is entitled to a certain amount.
It's easier with the health transfer because it's by the amount of people—so many people in Ontario compared to Nova Scotia, or whatever. But if you went down that road, the tricky part would be P.E.I., for instance, which is a big agricultural area but it has only 150,000 people.
I guess what I'm getting at is that you would have to have a bit of a formula on the basis of the amount of agriculture in that region. Is that what you guys are thinking would be a better scenario?
3:10 p.m.
As an Individual
That would be just strictly on gross dollar value of the non-SM industry, basically.
3:10 p.m.
Owner, Cedarline Greenhouses
That was in place a number of years ago. I forget the terminology of it all, but there was allocation from the federal government to the provinces based on GDP, and I think Ontario got 23%. So if there was $1 billion that the federal government gave out, the Ontario government got $230 million, and some of that went into the market revenue program and some of it was allocated to different issues at need. That effectively did the same thing.
The second part is the federal government administering programs, and frankly, you guys are expensive. We can do it much more cheaply provincially. We can do it efficiently and with less bureaucracy.
3:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Waiting until 2010 to get a 2008 AgriStability fee is unacceptable.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
That's my only question. I have only a minute left, if somebody wants to add to it.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Are there any other comments there?
Okay.
Ms. Bonsant, you have three minutes.
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
Thank you very much.
I come back to your suggestion once more. You know that each province has a minister of agriculture who looks after changes and everything like that. What I find most strange is that you want the federal government to send money to the provinces. I completely agree with you about that, because you are saying that federal programs are not working. Who knows whether the federal government, which changes its mind like it changes its socks, will stop sending money to the provinces at some stage, and we will be back to square one?
3:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't know if where we started at that time was really that bad. It was different.
It is true that the provinces are probably more efficient because they're dealing with a smaller area. However, in Ontario we have huge issues with what's across the border from us and how subsidized products come in here and displace ours at costs we can't match.
So I don't know how we put something in place to stop what Ontario farmers consider to be poaching. If you can find a way for the federal government to referee that sort of thing, that's a very good plan. But provincial flexibility is a must. We're just too diverse a country.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
It is true that Canada is a big country. When you look at it in its entirety, you are looking at a continent. This is no small province.
Do you believe that the federal government's role is to make sure that what comes into Canada from outside is not just dumping, not just someone's leftovers? The requirements for our domestic products should also be the requirements for products from elsewhere, be they from Brazil or from the United States. Each year, in my riding, we are always recalling those little carrots from California because we find salmonella in them.
Do you believe that the federal role is to make sure the products coming into the country are safe?
3:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm not sure it's the federal government's role to guarantee it as much as it's the importer's role. I think more onus needs to go on the importers to pay the full cost of protecting and ensuring the product they bring in. And then it wouldn't be so cheap for them to bring that product in if they have to take full responsibility for it.