Agriculture Committee on Dec. 6th, 2011

[Connie Patterson]

I will speak on that, from British Columbia. Our administrators and I look after a lot of the forms for our cattle producers in the province, and these certainly are cumbersome. They're not easily managed, for a lot of cattle producers. So yes, instead of 18 pages, it would be nice to see them come down to half that size, or be condensed more

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Connie, would you have any particular recommendations you could provide to the committee in writing to help in that area? I know there's red tape reduction going on right now, as well.

[Connie Patterson]

Yes, certainly, we could do that. We have some notes already in our office, so I will have somebody do up those notes and send them off.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

That would be great. Thank you.

Mr. Orb, I think you were—

[Ray Orb]

Yes, I had a comment on that. I think there are some ways we can save.

I know the Province of Saskatchewan now does its own administration of AgriStability, and it has helped tremendously. I think you have people who understand the problems that are indigenous to Saskatchewan, so that's been helpful.

An idea that I think is being floated around with AgriStability is where you'd have a program that is current in the year in which have a production or price issue, or whatever it is. I think you could do it more simply than it is being done now. Most farmers realize that it doesn't matter whether you sell your cattle in the fall or you harvest in the fall, because you know exactly what kind of year you've had.

If you do your income on an accrual basis, which is what AgriStability does, as it always puts it back to the accrual system, you'd be able to hone in on what the problems are. You wouldn't have to put it off a year, or a year and a half, to get payments; the government would know where they're at and so would the producers. I think it could be made a lot simplier and a lot cheaper.

It costs us about $1,500 a year to do AgriStability, and we've had one payment in the last 30 years. AgriStability wasn't always there, but through all the programs that's all we've had.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

If you have any particular suggestions and could submit them to the committee, that would be good.

[Ray Orb]

We could certainly forward that.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

All right. Thank you.

[Nil Béland]

In Quebec, in the offices of the Union des producteurs agricoles, there are accounting services used for tax purposes. Therefore, documents are very often completed by these people. Some producers complete these documents themselves. Often we learn what do to only when all these documents are completed. When you do business with specialized offices of this kind, this service costs only a hundred dollars or so, and the documents are sent directly to the person for whom they are intended. The process is very fast.

However, the process is longer for people who, like me, operate within AgriStability, which is a part of supply management. The documents for my 2009 tax return were completed at the end of September 2010. So there is some delay. With the exception of paperwork, it is possible to operate much more efficiently.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Jacob.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

My first question is addressed to Nil Béland, who is a board member of the Éleveurs de volailles du Québec.

In theory, types of production that come under supply management, such as yours, are not eligible for the Business Risk Management or BRM program. Should products subject to quotas benefit from the BRM programs just as eligible types of products do, and why?

[Nil Béland]

As for supply management, production is managed within the system, and the risk is inherent to that. Certain risks are part of the production, but are included in the cost of production. Each producer must do his job, carry out the production properly, regardless of field-specific uncertainties. Within the system—I am speaking mostly about poultry and eggs since I am the most familiar with them given that I work in those fields—we have insurance programs that help us manage our risk.

I would humbly say that supply management is a very good system, but we cannot have the advantages of all the systems without any disadvantages. Therefore, for this type of risk management, I prefer that the risk remain within the system. That is how we operate. It is not perfect, as we have seen in British Columbia, and that is why the AgriStability program covers us. In any case, the risk must be managed within the system.

To come back to the case of British Columbia, the people there had to stop chicken production for a long time. It was transferred to other provinces, other producers, other slaughterhouses, other hatcheries and other mills, which did their part. Production was transferred partially back to British Columbia the following year. Therefore, the risk was covered within the system.

It would be detrimental to receive more government aid. That would not be acceptable.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

My second question could be addressed to you, Mr. Béland. However, if other participants want to respond afterwards, they may also do so.

Canadian agriculture is diverse both in terms of production types and in terms of company size. However, BRM programs seem to be mainly for large traditional sectors, such as grain, beef and pork, and not for marginal types of production, which are often operated on a small scale.

Shouldn't the government reconsider the way it supports the agricultural sector, taking into account production diversity and the various models?

[Nil Béland]

For niche production, it is necessary to find the money in the market itself. That is how it works.

There is also the matter of system effectiveness. In Quebec, the system is not quite the same, even though the federal government contributes to the stabilization insurance program in Quebec. Below a certain number of hours, producers are not covered.

For niche production, the funding must be found in the market itself. Government aid is mainly to help mass production. It is in fact meant to make sure that the general population has enough food. It is a matter of food sovereignty.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Is there anyone else who would like to answer the question?

[Joe Brennan]

Maybe I would just say that the challenge with any a program is to have one that is common enough to suit many diversified sectors. The more you do that, the more complex it's going to be. There's a limit to how far you can make a one-size-fits-all program for everything. So it would be a real challenge to do that.

The fact that they are often direct marketers makes it a risk management tool, because they get the value of the crop without having the pressure of the processing and the wholesale/retail in there as well. As Mr. Béland said, that would help to mitigate those risks on their own.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Orb.

[Ray Orb]

The short answer could be yes, that it could be looked at. I think niche markets are important. Producers could be given the choice, as it is now, if you want to enrol in a program. It's something that would have to be looked at for new programming. I think it would be a good idea to look at that.

We have people who are willing to start up processing in Saskatchewan. Right now there's a whole new market emerging there. We didn't need to have the ability to do that before. Maybe some of those people would be interested in that. So I think consultation would be good.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Zimmer, you have five minutes.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I would like to ask Connie a question.

How are you doing there in Dawson Creek?

[Connie Patterson]

We're under the snow belt and doing well. There's a lot of snow today.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

That's good to hear.

Dawson Creek is in my riding. It's mile zero of the Alaska Highway and the B.C.-Peace River area. That's a little plug.

Thanks, Connie. One thing you mentioned that was a bit concerning, to say the least, was the 35% loss of herd. I'm sure we don't need to say it was because of the BSE crisis, and otherwise.

With that concern, to follow up on what Pierre was asking you, what do you suggest would move us closer to a good solution in livestock insurance? If you could write that program, with your vast experience--I know it's 40 years-plus, though I hate to say that—what would it look like?

[Connie Patterson]

We had a program for livestock insurance in British Columbia some 25 years ago and it worked very well. Just as with any other insurance there were premiums, and the program paid out if the market fell. If the market did not fall, that money was collected and stayed in the pool. It worked so well for British Columbia that after it was all over—and we retired the program after 10 years—we had $9.5 million that we use as a fund to this day. We collect the interest from it and pay out grants for programs that enhance the cattle industry. That's how well it worked for our province.

So there is a model from 25 years ago, and you might like to look at it.