Agriculture Committee on May 4th, 2010

[Gayl Creutzberg]

From a personal standpoint, I can tell you that when I wanted to start farming, I approached every large bank and Farm Credit. They actually came to the farm and they almost laughed at the place. Four years later it sold for almost $100,000 more.

We didn't come from farm backgrounds, but there was a salary there in support, and they were just not interested. I think the sheep didn't help either. They didn't see sheep as a viable business. Of course, now it's a very viable business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks. Your time has expired.

Go ahead, Mr. Lobb. You have five minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Saunders.

I really commend Dairy Farmers of Ontario for taking on their young farmers program. Where do you see the program heading in Ontario? Are you looking to expand the numbers or expand the number quota? As well, have any of the successful applicants from this past year had any other difficulties, either in purchasing equipment or anything else? What has the transition been like so far?

[Bruce Saunders]

To your last question, I can't comment, in that I have not heard anything on that.

Is there any interest in expanding the program? At this stage, it's only been in effect for eight months, so it's not likely, at least in the short term. I think the next time we expand the program even further, there will have to be more support from the existing producers.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

My next question is for Mr. Eby and perhaps Mr. Hayes.

Do you think the federal government should get out of the business of doing business risk management and allow the provinces to take that on themselves, to be able to react and respond to the differences and variations that each province experiences?

[Steve Eby]

It may not be business risk management per se, but there's an element that the federal government is not involved in right now.

We see programs in Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, but we see the federal government pointing the finger at Ontario for not being involved. There's an area in that whole business risk management profile--and it's maybe not APF per se, but pillared within--where the federal government should be at the table providing leadership.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Let me rephrase that. From an overarching view in terms of trade, disease prevention, research and development, and all those things, do you think they should let the provinces completely administer themselves, perhaps with some funding to them, so that they're respecting the provinces' jurisdictions?

[Steve Eby]

I suppose we have to respect the provinces' responsibilities with some of those issues, but if you keep downloading that, we continually assist in that unlevel playing field.

Yes, there may be tweaking that can be done, but without looking into a whole lot of detail right now, I'd be cautious on that, because then you create 13 more mechanisms of unlevel playing field with regard to research. Research might be a small part of it, but when you get into disease issues and that sort of thing, that's where we need Canada as a government to step up and say what the blanket policy is. We may not all agree with it from within, but if we've got a blanket policy, then we're not creating walls for interprovincial trading.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'll ask one question, and then you can finish it off.

In Steve's area and my area, there are a number of small abattoirs and butcher shops, and in my short time there are certainly a lot fewer than when I was a kid. If there were, say, another five or 10 smaller abattoirs in place in Bruce County, how much more of a benefit would that be to the beef sector in the Bruce and Grey counties? Would that mean a lot more profit?

[Douglas Hayes]

As I said before, I think it would give an opportunity for someone to access the consumer dollar. If you have to ship your cattle all the way down south, and then if the meat is brought back....

There is a market out there. People are constantly coming to me and asking if they can buy a quarter of a beef or whatever, and I have to turn them down because it just isn't feasible the way it is.

There are two things: more packing through small abattoirs, and making it feasible and profitable for the ones that are already there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Gayl, you have the last comment.

[Gayl Creutzberg]

The other option is mobile abattoirs. We would like to see some mobile abattoirs. There is less stress on the animals and it deals with the smaller producers that have....

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Could you explain, just so it's on the record, exactly how a mobile abattoir would work?

[Gayl Creutzberg]

It would hitch on to the back of a pickup. There are chicken abattoirs, and certainly slaughtering chickens is a problem in the area, more perhaps than slaughtering beef. There would be an inspected facility that is pulled behind—a big stainless steel apparatus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Before we move on to the last round, Steve, I have just one thing. I think you and I have discussed this before.

It's the issue with provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Quebec. The only way the federal government can get in.... For example, if they're going to give you $100 a head, even though the Alberta government is already giving their beef farmers $100 a head, as a national government we're still bound to do so too. If you could get a commitment from Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan to withdraw their programs and have the government do it, then everybody would be treated the same.

But we don't have the mandate as a federal government to tell them not to do that; they would have to do it willingly. The bottom line is that if the federal government gives everybody, whether in the beef, hog, or sheep industry, or whatever, a certain amount of money, they have to give the producer the same thing no matter where he lives in Canada. At the end of the day, unless the provinces back off from doing what they're doing, you still end up with those inequities.

I farm and you farm here in Ontario. I've always thought, and you've heard me say it before, that this is why, when it comes down to it, the only body that can alleviate that inequity is the province, which has to step up to the plate—unless you can get the other provinces to back off and let it be run as a national program.

[Steve Eby]

Those programs exist, and you're right that individual provinces have made those decisions to support the producers in such a way. However, there is an opportunity for the federal government to show an element of leadership in something like a price insurance program. I know that insurance is a provincial area, but there is an opportunity to show some leadership, which can be blanketed across the country, to help level, I'll say, a new playing field. The old one has Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, with their programs. Let's move on.

There are programs on the table that have been discussed, and you people have been exposed to them at other committee meetings. They look reasonably sound. Let's move on. The federal government can show some leadership on some of that on a whole new level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Shipley, you have the last of the first round.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to each of you for coming out.

All of you talked about the significance of levelling the playing field in our first group. We talked about that, so I won't repeat the need and the common thread that has gone through, particularly on regulatory issues.

One of the things we have talked about, coming across Canada, is that there is always a variation in programs with caps. You indicated, Mr. Hayes, that there might in fact be a cap of $50,000. One of the numbers that was always out there is that 20% of the farmers produce 80% of the produce. That's an old number; it's likely 15% of the farmers now who produce maybe 85% or more of the produce.

Just thinking in that context—and I'd like to have some comments—and recognizing that we have high input costs for capital, equipment, land, rent, which is actually one of the controllable parts of production, do you see as individuals that there should be a cap, and should that cap be low, when we know that the numbers for production of food are somewhere in that range: that 15% produce 85% of the produce?

I'll just open it up. Maybe Grant and Steve and Sean.... And Bruce, I don't know whether that comes into your....

Okay, Grant, make a quick start.

[Grant Caswell]

As long as there is enough money to go around in general, whenever someone needs a hand it should be available. We should not have someone taking all of it out the first time. As I explained concerning the environmental farm plan, there was nothing left any more for anybody. That's the type of deal we don't want to happen with these plans: that someone can get their hands on them before anybody else has a chance to get a helping hand. It's not always the guy who maybe needs it, but he already has his out, and the guy who's left in the corner is still the one who's not going to make it.

[Steve Eby]

With regard to caps, I'm speaking as a small business owner with a family farm. I'm not incorporated.

The cap issue is certainly a hot topic in different areas. We have $1.5 million to $2 million in sales. If you put a cap on a program--let's say $25,000--depending on the disaster that program was created to cover, why would I even be involved in it? My sales versus the potential return on that particular program, because of the way it's capped, make it of very little value, and I'm a relatively small beef producer.

From a policy standpoint, I would sooner see a food policy in place that supports farmers to the extent that we wouldn't need some of these programs. Let's get that distribution of income back to where it's produced. That comes, maybe, to consumer education and that whole side; consumers would have to buy into the idea of who they're supporting and why they're supporting them.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Would you comment, Sean?

[Sean McGivern]

I really don't believe subsidies should be based on pounds per animal or bushels per acre. I think we need to get away from that system. It doesn't encourage sustainable healthy production. It's a “much wants more” attitude. I think we need to pay people for goods and services and look at other ways of keeping farmers on the farm.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Sean, you've touched on one of the things in terms of subsidies, and it brings me back to Gayl, in terms of a comment you made that would raise.... I'm just wondering about the question it raises.

Farmers will tell us that when you subsidize, actually all you do is marginalize the capitalization of assets. One of the big issues is the price of land. We're overcapitalized sometimes, but I'm not saying in equipment, for example. If we went to a match of one for one, so that a young farmer might actually be able to buy a farm, do you see that as an issue? I think it might be a trade issue; if it became a national one, it would actually become a trade issue, but do you see that as one of those steps? Someone says to himself that he only has...it's $5,000-per-acre land, but it will actually only cost him $2,500 per acre, so he can actually pay $3,000. Do you see that as an issue that drives the price of the asset and the competition for land upward?

[Gayl Creutzberg]

That question, I have to admit, is actually out of the scope of my expertise. Sorry.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I think, Sean, that may go back to some of your concern. I'm not sure.