Agriculture Committee on March 22nd, 2010

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

Could you read the motion again please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

If you go to your motion where it said, “and that the committee specifically examine the impact of efforts by the federal government”--that's how it now reads--it would now read, “examine the impact of efforts by the federal and provincial governments to recoup CAIS overpayment.” Again, the key word here is to “examine”. That's what this committee would be doing.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I don't have a problem with that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Do you accept that as a friendly amendment?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes.

On Randy's point originally, when you're talking about the AgriStability program I don't think you need to mention federal or provincial. The AgriStability program is under the Growing Forward program's 60-40 anyway, so it's just implied.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, along as we're clear that we understand it's both federal and provincial, so if we are going to look at this more closely we have to bring both parties to the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Just so everybody is aware, Mr. Easter has accepted that as a friendly amendment.

I have Mr. Lemieux and then Mr. Storseth.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I want to mention two facts.

First, they are two completely different issues. One of them is the Growing Forward program and the other one is the CAIS program. They are two completely separate studies. I'd prefer to see them separated because they're going to be tackled separately. If they're within the same motion, we'll then have witnesses coming in to talk about one, talk about the other, and mix them together. They are two completely separate issues.

The second thing I'd like to mention is that I'm not sure why the AgriStability program is being separated from the Growing Forward program. I think it's very hard. Growing Forward consists of a number of programs. There're AgriInvest, AgriRecovery, and AgriStability. There are a number of programs that actually work together and are meant to work together. There are no firewalls among them. AgriInvest is meant to work with AgriStability. The two programs working together actually offer the farmers more flexibility than they had under the CAIS program.

The second key point I would like to make is that if we're going to study this and we want to do justice to the programs and to the farmers, then we need to expand AgriStability so that it's part of Growing Forward. We're going to have witnesses in front of us who are going to talk about federal programs and federal support for agriculture. They're going to venture into the other types of support. If we have farmers from drought-stricken Alberta, where they received some AgriRecovery money, it's important to know that. If the farmers are going to draw on AgriStability, they have probably drawn on AgriInvest. The two fit hand in glove. They actually fit together.

I would like to make an amendment to this motion. I would like to remove the word “AgriStability” and replace it with the words “Growing Forward” so that we are looking at the Growing Forward program. I think it actually gives our witnesses more scope. In other words, if they want to talk about AgriInvest, they'll have the freedom to do so without us telling them they're off topic, because we're actually talking about AgriStability, and they should restrict their comments to AgriStability. It gives them the latitude to talk about the programs in the way they see them. They see them as an integral package.

The second change that I would to like to put forward as part of the same amendment is to strike the words “and that the committee specifically examine the impacts of efforts”, etc., to the end of the sentence. Chair, I'm removing the CAIS overpayment portion, because I think it's a separate study. Again, I think that if we confuse it with the Growing Forward program, we're going to mix apples and oranges. It's better to study the Growing Forward program. We can study the CAIS overpayment program, if that's what the committee chooses to do. I think it's important to differentiate between the two. They're two completely separate initiatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. It was clear what you added.

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

Yes, I'm removing the word “AgriStability”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You changed “AgriStability” to “Growing Forward”.

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

It will now read “of the Growing Forward program”. We can delete everything after that. I think it should be a separate motion. It's a separate study. We'll have different witnesses who will come before us and potentially the same witnesses will be before us on a completely different topic. I think they should be treated separately, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Discussion or debate will now be on Mr. Lemieux's amendment. I have Mr. Storseth, Mr. Easter, and Mr. Shipley.

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

Mr. Chair, I actually wanted to speak to the main motion. I would suggest you begin a new speaking list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We're now discussing the amendment. It's up to you on how you speak to it. You can come back to it, if you want.

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

All right. My question was on Mr. Easter's actual motion. I think we're somewhat splitting hairs here. I don't think anybody disagrees on what we need to study and what we need to look at. It needs to be a priority.

I have some concerns with Mr. Easter's motion. I was actually going to ask Mr. Valeriote a question. To me it reads that the committee will look at AgriStability and the committee will specifically examine the impact of that. It seems we are saying that we are going to specifically look at this. Our hands will be tied if we get into a discussion about whether it is AgriRecovery or whether it's different aspects of AgriStability that we don't like. It seems to me that this motion ties the committee's hands on what we're going to talk about when the witnesses come forward.

I would actually agree with Mr. Lemieux's motion, because it seems to broaden it. I'm sure we'll want to talk about the specifics of the CAIS overpayment or whatever, but I think it's better for the motion to be a little broader. The witnesses are going to come from all over the country. We can ask them a wide range of questions on the programs. I don't want to be tied into only one aspect that we're allowed to question the witnesses on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Storseth.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I disagree entirely with Mr. Lemieux's amendment to go forward on the Growing Forward framework, because when people are looking at it, they basically see AgriStability as CAIS renamed.

Yes, there have been some changes to it, but clearly in this ad from quite a number of organizations in Ontario today—Ontario Pork, the Cattlemen's Association, the Federation of Agriculture, Grains and Oilseeds, Ontario Sheep, and the Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association—Ontario farmers basically tell us that AgriStability does not work. They claim that business risk management must be included in AgriFlexibility, etc., etc.

The key focus in terms of the economic safety net for producers on the income side is AgriStability. That's where the key focus is. So I think that's what we have to address.

I don't disagree if people want to enter into some discussions on AgriRecovery and AgriInvest, and so on. I'm not concerned about that. I am concerned about AgriRecovery in that it has never worked. It hasn't worked as a disaster program. We've seen that in the P.E.I. potato industry and elsewhere. And I do think it needs to become a disaster program, not just cover the costs of removal of crop but assist in recovering crop income losses as a result of events beyond producers' control.

So I believe the motion has to be left specifically to AgriStability. I don't have a problem if we want to remove the second part—and I will come back with a new motion on the CAIS overpayment side. It is the forerunner of the program.

I'm willing, Mr. Chair, to drop it and come back with a better worded motion on the CAIS overpayment side and have the motion just read that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food examine the functioning of the AgriStability program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

So the motion now ends at “examine the functioning of the AgriStability program”. The rest of it is off the table right now, and Mr. Easter has indicated that he'll deal with that at another point.

Before we deal with that, we have to vote on Mr. Lemieux's amendment, unless he agrees to withdraw it.

I need direction from you.

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

No, Mr. Chair. What is the best way to put it? I would be willing to divide my motion in two so that there's a vote on Growing Forward and a vote on....

Or listening to what Mr. Easter said, I could put forward another amendment, in a moment, that just deals with the....

I think we should look at the full Growing Forward program. I don't want to change that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

This is what Mr. Easter's motion would now read:

That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food examine the functioning of the AgriStability program.

That's it.

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

Mr. Chair, for clarification in terms of the will of the committee, I don't want the chair to interpret it, then, as we're simply going to restrict our questions to AgriStability. I think the will of the committee is that if we bring these witnesses forward, we want to be able to talk about the whole suite of programs.

If Wayne wants to leave AgriStability as it is, just so it's on the record and so we know the will of the committee, we're not going to bring these witnesses in two or three times to talk about the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have Mr. Easter on record as saying he doesn't have a problem with that.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Chair, if I may, I'm just trying to be cooperative here, but if Mr. Easter agrees with that, we should just change the wording to “Growing Forward”.

If he agrees that the witnesses can come in and talk about any of the programs that tie together to make Growing Forward, I don't understand the obstacle to just saying “Growing Forward” and then that is the motion, because that's what the witnesses will be coming before the committee on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, again, as a suggestion in terms of mediation here, what if it were to read “AgriStability, Growing Forward, and other companion programs”? Would that be acceptable to everyone?