Finance Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[Andrew McKee]

That's one of the potential avenues. We've had two approaches. The initial request, in consultation with government, suggested that doing it through CIHR was the best proposal. CIHR has changed its leadership several times recently, so they are doing another internal review and are coming out with a new strategic approach right now. At present, we've been told that it could be 12 to 18 months before they can give effect to this.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Tassel, is the grain sector affected by supply management, which may or may not be negotiated with European countries?

[William Van Tassel]

If the grain sector, if there is supply management—

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Chicken, eggs...

[William Van Tassel]

Not really, but in a certain sense, yes. With regard to the amber box, the current figure is $4.3 billion. If there are changes, if there is support for the WTO, there could be a reduction of $2.3 billion. That could lead to changes in the type of program funding.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I see.

Ms. Craig, I think your proposal is quite interesting, the basic income benefit. I don't think I've heard it put that way before, and I think I like it. But how would it be delivered federally? We already have welfare programs being delivered by the provinces. Could you elaborate? We don't want a duplication. I'm not so sure it would be efficient for the federal government to get involved in setting up another basic income through the tax system. I'm not sure it would work.

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

We're asking that the basic income supplement be initiated and administered through the federal government. It would be much easier and more equitable that way. The federal government would work with the provinces to look at developing other support systems, such as employment preparation and educational opportunities.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

But would it be a separate program?

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

Yes, we want the basic income supplement to come from a federal initiative.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

How would it be evaluated? We hear a lot of complaints about the provincial government's not doing a good enough job in delivering welfare. People complain that it goes to people who don't need it, and that those who need it don't get enough. I can't see how the federal government would be able to do a better job, since they're much further from the people in question.

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

First of all, if the rates were raised to supplement the elderly pensions, that would help considerably. Right now people are receiving less than $8,000 in the provincial system—and that's with the disability supplement.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

So the beginning would be to increase the amounts for the guaranteed income supplement, old age security, and the Canada child tax benefit?

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

Absolutely.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

And then you might want to increase it progressively with GST reimbursements and other things of that nature.

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

That would be good.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

So this would work with existing programs to deliver income to people who need it most. It would not add a separate bureaucracy.

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

We feel it would be best to eliminate some of the provincial social assistance programs in favour of delivering a federal initiative.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

That's interesting.

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

The federal government could work with the provinces to establish other initiatives that would be beneficial to people receiving the supplement. This would assist people in transitioning back to work. People with mental health problems can recover, but once you're in a cycle of poverty, it's difficult to get out.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.

We'll go to Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Van Tassel, of the Ontario-Quebec Grains and Oilseeds Farmers’ Coalition.

The Quebec and Ontario grains and oilseeds farmers have banded together. I presume that is because you are minor players in the grain market compared to western producers. Is that one of the reasons why you got together?

[William Van Tassel]

I would not say that we are minor grain producers but that we have different crops. Soya is the main crop in eastern Canada. It was more a question of having the same needs. In talking, we realized that we had the same needs. Ontario could also give its opinion.

[Leo Guilbeault]

In Ontario we have benefited from the Risk Management Program, RMP, and in Quebec from the Programme d'assurance stabilisation des revenus agricoles, ASRA. We started talking and realized that our needs were similar. Thus, we worked together to establish a federal program, which led to the creation of the AgriFlex program.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You talked about AgriFlex and said that it does not cover business risk management programs. I gather that the Agricultural Flexibility Fund is not as flexible as that.

In very simple terms and to clarify this for us, could you give us some examples of risk management programs that are not covered but that should be?

[William Van Tassel]

At present, the Agricultural Flexibility Fund is not flexible. Initially, we asked where the greatest needs were.

Grains and oilseeds are doing fairly well at present in Canada and that is not where the needs are. However, pork producers do need help. The money could go there this year in certain provinces. That is the kind of flexibility that is needed. At present, that is not what is happening with risk management programs. It is going to other types of programs.