Agriculture Committee on Dec. 15th, 2011

[Allan Ling]

I will. Thank you again.

What we're referring to there is just the AgriInvest program, okay? As it is today, it's 1.5% of your eligible net sales, matched by government. There's a feeling that we would love to see that raised from 1.5% to 3%, because it is a program where you can predict in advance what you're going to get out of it. It's set up so that you can take your money out of it or you can leave it in. Of course, you have to match it yourself: if it's $10,000, then you have to put up your $10,000 as well. But in that aspect, it's very easy for a bank to give you credit.

That's where we were coming from on the cap. A lot of the farms in Atlantic Canada are smaller than they are in western Canada, with smaller revenues, so that's quite important to us down here. Thank you for the question.

I will just thank all of you again, because I'm going to have to leave in a few minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

Travis, I wasn't sure if you're—

[Travis Toews]

Well, I should clarify my comments.

My comments around the caps were not specifically related to the funding calculation with AgriInvest. My reference was to the issue that there are caps on these programs to the point where large operators cannot participate in the same manner, using the same calculations.

We fundamentally disagree that operations should be disqualified from participating fully, simply because of the size of their operation.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I have a subsequent question to that, then.

How would that affect the larger ones—and when you say "large", I'm not sure what that means—versus the smaller individual farm organizations?

[Travis Toews]

An example—and Ryder, correct me if I'm wrong—is the cap on AgriInvest, which is $22,500 annually. For a large feeding company that turns over tens of millions or maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they're capped out immediately on that program to the point where it is really a meaningless program for them.

There is a combination of challenges with AgriInvest. First of all, companies are capped out. Secondly, the way the calculation works is that the cost of their feed grain comes off of the calculation and, consequently, they're left with virtually no support out of that program as well.

Again, our position would be that we should at least have a level playing field with regard to the program between sectors.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Banack, do you have a comment?

[Humphrey Banack]

When AgriInvest was brought out the first time, CFA felt very strongly about AgriInvest over the full-tier program. At that time, we moved to have it at 2.5% or 3% of eligible net sales. I believe we would still support raising the eligible net sales from the 1.5% we're at today.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Do I have a little bit of time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, you do.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

We've heard some farmers recommend that AgriInsurance be reviewed every year, as done in Ontario at the provincial level.

This question is open to anybody. First of all, do you think this is a good idea? Would this enhance your ability to do business?

[Humphrey Banack]

Absolutely. I think that AgriInsurance, as much as we can look at it.... There are always issues as we move forward, whether it be in the crop insurance we use, or whether it's the price insurance programs that are available to us in the AgriInsurance suite of programs.

As you look across the country, a review of the provincial programs would help us see if there are ideas out there we can use from them and help us to understand exactly where we're at, and then we can change things as we move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired, Mr. Payne, unless—

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Just barely.

Mr. Delaney, do you have a comment?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Delaney, Mr. Payne was asking if you had a comment on that.

[Michael Delaney]

No, thanks for the opportunity. I have no direct comment on that.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Travis, just before I go on, you made a comment earlier about an unlevel playing field and you referred directly to Quebec. I can tell you, as a beef farmer from Ontario, I know what you're talking about. But we also face the same thing from Alberta with the $100 a head.

I just want to understand if you are saying that the Quebec situation is different or worse, because in the last couple of years, it has led producers here—not just in the beef sector, but in some other agricultural commodities—to push for a risk management program. Of course, the provinces have the right to do that, and I give Ontario credit for doing that. But they tried to basically force the federal government to jump in on that, which of course is not our responsibility to do.

Maybe you could just comment briefly on that. I meant to ask you sooner.

[Travis Toews]

Good question.

Alberta is not squeaky clean on the whole issue of providing payments very distinctive from or in excess of other provinces. That has happened in the past.

We are supportive of a national approach. We don't believe there should be one-offs. Quebec, as we know, has a long-term program. I think Ontario is considering one, or is getting one up and running, which is not a one-time response to a disaster, but an ongoing program. We're concerned with different provinces doing their own thing, as it does result in an unlevel playing field, particularly when those programs run the risk of bringing on trade risk to an industry that is export-dependent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Would it be fair to say that if the federal government did what Alberta, Quebec, or Ontario are proposing, we'd certainly be putting our trade in jeopardy? Would that be a fair statement?

[Travis Toews]

From what we know—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

From a national standpoint?

[Travis Toews]

From what we know of the programs right now, it would certainly increase our trade risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Raynault for five minutes.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for the Atlantic grain producers.

On your website, it says that your organization is currently working on various proposals for improving your industry and the situation of your regional members. Could you tell us more about that, please? How could these projects be of interest to other Canadian producers?