Agriculture Committee on March 22nd, 2010

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, no. The problem here is a little bit of urgency, Chair. There needs to be a strong letter from the Minister of Transport himself, because if the railways move to lift these shunt lines, which they can do, then those sites are gone. I would recommend that in your letter you mention the urgency to the minister, because the process is a good one, yes, but there's no sense having the process if half the sites are already gone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. All in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

That's carried unanimously.

The next motion we have is Mr. Easter's motion on AgriStability.

Wayne, you indicated that you didn't know whether you were going to bring this forth.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Let's have a look at it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I won't read it out until--or if--he tables it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I will move it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Read it into the record, if you would, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I will move it and explain why. I move that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food examine the functioning of the AgriStability program, and that the committee specifically examine the impact of efforts by the federal government to recoup CAIS overpayments on primary producers.

As we just heard in the last discussion and from the ad in today's Hill Times, the AgriStability program is not working. It's especially not working for beef producers and hog producers. The problem is that the viability test is there for beef and hogs, but if they didn't have a couple of good years it doesn't work. If you have long-term declines in pricing, it just doesn't work. It's the same as the old CAIS program in that way.

I think we need to look at that and make some recommendations on it. The minister himself stated when he was here the other day that the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture would be providing a report on this issue to the ministers meeting in June. We should have input from producers in that.

The second part of the motion is an extremely serious issue, and that is CAIS overpayments that have been paid out. They've been turned over to Revenue Canada. I've talked to quite a number of producers. Some of them have left the industry, and all they have left are their houses. They farmed and provided cheap food for Canadians over the years, and ended up losing their farm operations due to overpayments on CAIS. They're now getting hounded by Revenue Canada to the point that they will likely have to declare bankruptcy and will probably lose their houses in the process. That's how serious it is. It's not huge dollars in most cases, but it's causing a lot of stress to those people who find themselves in that situation.

I think we need to make some recommendations to the government on how those payments could be made in a way to alleviate some of that stress on families who are really in serious trouble over those overpayments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Easter, you're quite aware that AgriStability and those programs are federal-provincial responsibilities, not just federal responsibilities. I wonder if you'd entertain a friendly amendment that not just Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, but also the provincial departments of agriculture participate in that study.

It's quite clear that in order to change legislation or these programs the provinces have to be onside. You're doing just half the job if you ask only Agriculture and Agri-food Canada to examine this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but based on what you just said, are you proposing to add “the impact of efforts by the federal and provincial governments”?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm just looking at this. I'd suggest, “That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, along with its provincial partners, departments of agriculture, examine the functioning of the AgriStability program; and that the committee...”.

It gets awkward here, because we can look at it as a committee, but there are provincial agriculture committees that should also be looking at it. I guess I'm seeking advice from my colleagues here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

The clerk made a comment--and I tend to agree with her--that the way you read it out first might be beyond our mandate. But if you use the words “examine the impact of efforts by the federal and provincial governments to recoup CAIS overpayments”, that might not be. I think it would do what you're suggesting, but I'll leave that choice up to you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

As a point of information on that, Mr. Chair, provincial governments are not trying to recoup the CAIS overpayments, Revenue Canada is. I don't know whether Revenue Canada is doing it on behalf of the provinces, but I don't believe so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Part of those payments, Wayne, not to debate it, but would they not be 60-40?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The program is 60-40, but Revenue Canada is doing the action. I'm aware the provinces are in it.

The bottom line is the federal government needs to show leadership here. They can put it to the ministers of agriculture meeting. We can hear from both. We can bring in witnesses from some of the provinces if we so like.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of points and a couple of questions for Mr. Easter. One is that these are two fundamentally different issues. I really think it should be two motions, because I agree with what you just said to Randy. When it comes to the examination of the AgriStability program there are different issues in different provinces. Some provinces, like Alberta, are in charge of it.

When you talk about the CAIS overpayment, I assume you are talking about the old 506 CAIS overpayment. The Province of Alberta obviously topped that up even more and there was a clawback there. So there are different issues across the country, and I think these are two specific ones. I'm not necessarily against either part of your motion, I'm just saying I think they are two very different issues.

I agree with Mr. Hoback that if we are going to look at this we have to make a point to bring in people from across the country from all the different provinces, because there are different issues. You are aware of some of the issues in P.E.I. and there are different issues with the program in Ontario. So I think to do your motion the justice you're looking for, you would have to expand it a little bit. But I'd feel more comfortable if it were two separate motions.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think both issues need to be dealt with but not in the same way, Brian. If you wanted to put an (a) in there: examine (a) the functioning of the AgriStability program and that the committee (b) examine the impact....

I think both questions can be answered quite often by the same witnesses in charge of the program. I think if you deal with them separately--and we talked about this when we wrote the motion, because they do seem somewhat different issues, but it is the same people to a great extent. It's immaterial to me if we split it, but I just think we simplify our work as a committee--that's all we're trying to do--if we leave it together as (a) and (b) or the way it's written.

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

My concern is simply that both components are looked at equally seriously.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, and they both need to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Hoback, you suggested some changes. I don't know if you actually made them as an amendment or not.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm just thinking it through and thinking in the spirit of what Mr. Easter is trying to do and how to go about.... My concern is, as I said before, AgriStability and CAIS are federal-provincial shared programs. Not just the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food should be examining this, but we should be examining it with the provinces too, because they have a huge say in what goes forward as far as what we get in the program on AgriStability. I'm just trying to figure out how to put that into this motion and if that's even possible. While we're studying AgriStability, if the spirit is there we will bring in the provinces along with the study. If that means calling witnesses from the provincial governments, maybe that's something we can work on. I think you have talked about it before. I don't know if you remember what you said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, I do. What I said was is where it says “specifically examine the impact of efforts by the federal government” it would say “examine the impact of efforts by the federal and provincial governments to recoup CAIS”. It would all be the same except you would be adding “and provincial” and an “s” on the end of government.

Is that acceptable? It would now read: “by the federal and provincial governments”, with an “s” on it.

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

We need to look at the way the motion is worded. It states that the mechanics of the AgriStability program should be examined. Yet no changes are suggested at this time. It calls for an examination of the AgriStability program. Therefore, no conditions are being imposed on the provinces and their parties.

Clearly, I would be the first to applaud if we were to invite representatives of the agriculture departments of Quebec and of the other provinces to appear before the committee to discuss the matter. They are obviously affected by this issue, but our committee, as the clerk has pointed out, cannot order the provinces to examine matters for which they share responsibility with the federal government. We are not going to start doing this every time. I will always vote against us ordering the provinces what to do and what not to do. That approach would not make sense.

However, I agree with Randy that the matter clearly affects Quebec and the rest of the provinces. When we consider this issue in committee, we will make sure that witnesses from the provinces are in attendance. That is our prerogative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Bellavance, I would agree with what you're saying except that I think if you reread the suggestion that I made to address what he was trying to get at.... We can examine what goes on in France in agriculture if we want, or in England or any other place. When it comes to actually putting forth or trying to force change, no, we have no authority there, but we can examine anything we want. That's all that this motion would agree with.

Do you want me to read the whole thing, or just the portion?