Agriculture Committee on June 23rd, 2020

[Stuart Person]

Sure. There are a number of points noted in the submission that was provided back in April. I think there are about 15 items in total that were noted in it. Those are the items that we feel would be extremely beneficial, if all of them were looked into and followed through. Some of them are administrative and some of them are related to the program.

Again, as we mentioned, we don't feel that we can weigh in on where the trigger point should be, so we're not going to address that one. We will let producers deal with government on that and find a reasonable position.

Beyond that, one of the key things I would point out that is not in our submission is that we have some issues when we have prolonged weather disasters or prolonged negative impacts on farms, let's say for three to four or maybe even five years in a row. With the existing AgriStability framework, that becomes problematic. Reference margins become depleted, and therefore insurance coverage is depleted significantly and is insufficient. That would be one area that needs to be reviewed in the long run when looking at AgriStability.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would like now to turn to the pork producers, Mr. Rodrigue and Mr. Roy.

You spoke of the need for a complementary risk management program in addition to the 85% AgriStability rate and the elimination of reference margins.

What additional program would you like to see implemented? Would creating an emergency fund, as requested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, be appropriate to assist you on an ad-hoc basis?

[René Roy]

Our program is certainly not designed to provide protection against external shocks, such as trade wars, for example. We have to see what the best tool is, but we need to successfully help producers in the event of trade shocks outside the market. Of course, it would be appropriate support.

Mr. Rodrigue, is there anything else you would like to add?

[Mario Rodrigue]

No, that is okay.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

All right, thank you. That answers my question nicely.

Let us talk about the support being given to U.S. pork producers versus what is given to Canadian producers. How does that hinder you in terms of the future?

I do not know which one of you wants to answer the question.

[René Roy]

I will start by making a comment.

The issue is often raised in connection with the World Trade Organization—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Roy, can you place your microphone a little closer to your mouth when you talk? The interpreters are having a little trouble hearing.

[René Roy]

Okay. I hope this will be better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Let us try it.

[René Roy]

I was saying that, in terms of what is happening commercially, we are wondering whether 85% will be enough. The U.S. producers, our main competitors, are getting money directly. In our view, it creates unfair competition. We participate in the same markets as the Americans. It puts us at a disadvantage and weakens our global competitiveness.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

What could resolve this? Should we fight fire with fire and give you money too? Is there anything else we can do?

[René Roy]

There are different tools. It does not replace the government, but when the government makes certain decisions, we can step in, as we did for country of origin labelling. We stepped in to prevent that from happening again. That is one option. I am not saying that it should be used, but it is one option. Otherwise, we have to find ways to maintain the same competitive capabilities as our closest competitors.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

We are currently reviewing the risk management programs. For risks such as swine fever or other diseases, do current programs protect you from potential contamination?

[René Roy]

Mr. Rodrigue, can you answer the question?

[Mario Rodrigue]

Actually, one function of the AgriStability program and one of the benefits of increasing the margin to 85% is indeed—

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Chair, the interpreter is having trouble hearing. Perhaps the witness could speak a little closer to the microphone.

[Mario Rodrigue]

Okay. Is that better?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Yes. Please answer very quickly, Mr. Rodrigue, because we are almost running out of time.

[Mario Rodrigue]

From a health standpoint in Quebec, we are talking about the problem that African swine fever, ASF, could pose. However, for several years now, Quebec and other provinces have been dealing with another disease called porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, or PRRS. Despite repeated efforts, certain farms are hit with PRRS from time to time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Rodrigue. We have to move on to the next member.

Mr. MacGregor, you have six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for contributing to our study today.

Mr. Roy, I will continue with you and AgriRecovery. We have had a lot of discussion during this study and also in our COVID-19 study on how the business risk management programs have performed during this pandemic.

If you could look at AgriRecovery and the $125 million that was funnelled through that program and think about when the next pandemic hits or a disease breaks out in Canada's swine herds, I want to know what specific areas of this program we can improve.

When you look at how AgriRecovery performed during this pandemic and the money you received to stabilize herds, sometimes to euthanize, how much of a loss were you getting per pig? Those kinds of figures would be really helpful, because I don't think the costs associated with raising the pig, such as the amount of feed you had to give.... Can you maybe drill down on some of those finer details for the committee?

[René Roy]

I need a clarification. Do you want to know how much the loss is right now?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'd like to know how AgriRecovery performed during this pandemic. You received money to help stabilize your herds, and in some cases to euthanize, but how much money were you also losing that the program did not address? AgriRecovery has the word “recovery” in it; it should help you recover from the disaster.

[René Roy]

To tell you the truth, I feel the program should be called something else, because it is not about a recovery. It is more about preventing one. Right now, support is focused on euthanasia. But what producer will be able to continue for long if they do not receive revenue for their production and are compensated only for burying what they produce? Unfortunately, that cannot work.

For the program to work, it would have to help producers deal with extraordinary expenses related to production, not only disposal. It is a bit like saying that we are going to bury the grain that we cannot export this year: it is absurd. We have to find a way to help producers get through the crisis so that they can put their operations back on track rather than close up shop.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much.

For my next question, I'll turn to Meyers Norris Penny.

We've heard a lot over the last number of years about how farm debt has significantly increased over the last 20 years. You might look at gross sales by farms in general in Canada and see that they're doing quite well and increasing, but farmers also have a lot of costs, and the amount they're left with at the end of the year can fluctuate wildly.

If we do not improve these BRM programs significantly and look at all the risk that's apparent in the agricultural market, are we going to see a link between not improving BRM programs and an increase in farm debt, with more and more farms going under? It would be helpful to hear your thoughts.