Debates of May 14th, 2009

Agriculture and Agri-food--Main Estimates, 2009-10

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Chair, I think I will move on to another topic.

At about the time we were discussing product of Canada labelling in committee, an announcement was made by the Prime Minister that it would be now based on 98% content.

As the minister knows, there has been some feedback that this is not realistic. The recommendation from committee was for 85% content, which would take into account sugar, salt and so forth when processing Canadian products.

I wonder if the minister is looking to resolve this so it can be a little more flexible, for example, so that peaches grown in Ontario that are combined with sugar from Cuba, or somewhere else, can actually be labelled product of Canada. That apparently cannot be done now because of the 98% regulation.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, the number has been the point of much debate.

We have had tremendous discussion with consumers, who have been asking for this. They want to know that what is in that container is a product of Canada.

The way it was under the old government was that if 51% of the cost, not the content, was Canadian, it was product of Canada. It was a real perversion of the rules.

We consulted with Canadian consumers as to where they wanted to go and what they felt comfortable with. That is where the 98% came from. There were some 1,500 interventions from consumers and groups across the country. So that is where we are at.

If the hon. member cared to talk to that peach processor who is using Cuban sugar, he would find out there is a lot of sugar in Alberta.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Chair, if I understand it correctly, there are no discussions to change that 98% rule at this point in time, as has been demanded by some processors in Canada.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, I have a couple of quotes from a sometimes adversary, and let me make them.

....We knew long ago that this measure could improve farm incomes and provide valuable information to consumers.

I agree.

The other is:

...the new regulations provide consumers with honest information on the contents they purchase and the changes could also increase the consumption of Canadian products.

Who said that? The member for Malpeque.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Chair, it was not a straight yes or no on that, so I will continue with my hundreds of other questions.

The next question deals with animal transport. We are getting many letters from folks who are concerned about the conditions, the 36 hours of transport without food, water, et cetera. I know we have had folks appear before committee on this, and there is a study in process.

I am wondering what the timeline is and when we will have some changes to these regulations that better reflect international standards. We have been talking about this for a long time. People are asking for some answers, and I would like an update, please.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, as the hon. member has said, there is a growing concern, but not everything we read or see in the newspapers and press can be attributed to this. We could drive coast to coast in 36 hours, and there is nowhere that would be required. Any changes have to be based on sound science. They have to be based on credible information.

We are working with industry on that. Of course there have been a tremendous amount of changes. There are air-ride trailers now. We even have air-conditioned cattle plots. We have all sorts of things now.

Every once in a while there is an accident or something happens, there's an unforeseen act of God, so to speak. Having said that, we are very concerned that everything is handled humanely. There is a thing called human error that sometimes factors into it. Any of these decisions will be based on sound science and the best interests of the industry involved.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Chair, pursuing that for a couple of minutes, it is my understanding that Mr. Paul Mayers, in appearing before committee, said that work was continuing with colleagues at Justice to prepare regulatory amendments for consideration and ultimate publication in part 1 of the Canada Gazette that it would provide for formal consultative process.

I would like to know where we are in this process right now.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, I take the point seriously. We are working to that end. As the hon. member pointed out, we are working with Justice. It is actually the lead on this. It is looking to us for information to validate some of these new rules that will be coming into play. They will be gazetted very soon, and we continue to move forward on that file.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Chair, could the minister give me a rough timeline, so that when I answer these letters, I can say two months, three months, roughly half a year.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, I will pass on the member's concern to the Minister of Justice. The timeline is more theirs than ours, but I will find out and get back to the member. I will drop the hon. member a note.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Four minutes.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am getting some letters with respect to programs. People are concerned about the amount of money going to farmers from programs like AgriStability and the former CAIS. In one letter, a person wrote to say that AgriStability is presently only paying benefits on approximately 50% of the applications. Apparently the program has been designed to ensure that the biggest payments of $500,000 and over are going to very large farming operations.

That does not sound like a lot of people are getting help. I am wondering if that is accurate and whether the minister has any comments on that. Does he have any figures as to what percentage of people who apply are able to tap into AgriStability and the former CAIS program?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, the former CAIS program is wrapping up now. We are finishing off the final year. We are also into the first year of the new suite of programing, so I cannot comment on the numbers on that yet. We will be doing a review very shortly. We have discussions coming up at the federal-provincial-territorial table, at the beginning of July, to assess that first year. We will have all of those numbers at that point. Certainly we are not going to hide anything.

If there are changes we can make that will benefit the farm gate, we will do that. I think the number, if I heard it right, was 15%. I can say that is not anywhere close. It is amazing how many people can actually trigger these types of things. It depends on the area and the type of issue, but if anyone has a concern, have them email us and we will check out that particular situation.

There are more dollars available in the programs than ever before. We are getting good comments from AgriStability. We have actually been able to adjust negative margins. We have expanded the portfolio to include a number of things. As of April, we have had--

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I will let the member for British Columbia Southern Interior continue to pursue that question if he wishes.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Chair, with regard to that, do we have an idea of what the average of all benefit payments below $500,000 would be? Do we have any figures on the average payment with AgriStability?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, it depends on a number of factors that are weather related and market related and what the reference margin was to begin with. I can assure the hon. member that with the way these programs are run, the smaller farmers are done first and the large corporate farmers are actually done towards the end of the program year. They know it is coming. They generally have better financial situations so they can carry it. As long as they get an indication of what they are going to get, they seem to be okay with that.

I can assure the hon. member that the larger farms do not take precedent over the smaller farms.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Chair, with regard to Bill C-29 and added help with credit, we have consulted with some stakeholders and we basically support the bill.

The Credit Union Central's only request is “to have the government confirm that it intends to retain current practices under the FIMCLA program in relation to the definition of the prime rate for purposes of the program. Currently, the prime rate for purposes is understood to be the prime set by financial institutions themselves. Credit unions wish to see this current practice continue”.

Does the minister have a comment on this?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, that would certainly be the first and probably the easiest thing to do. I would reserve judgment on whether there is a way to lower the rate. Of course, the banks' idea of prime is quite a bit different from prime, so we will have to do some negotiations on that. We would like to see a much more preferential rate. Since the government will backstop those loans, there is very little risk to the bank, so we should be able to negotiate a rate that is better than the banks' idea of prime. We will seek to do that.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Madam Chair, I would like to start by reminding this House of the assistance this Conservative government has given to Canadian pork producers during these tough times. The international scientific community, including the OIE and the WHO, agrees that influenza A(H1N1) has nothing to do with food safety.

We will continue reassuring Canadian consumers and our international trade partners that Canadian pork is safe.

The government is determined to ensure the success of Canadian agriculture. The government does everything it can to make sure Canadian farmers succeed and to ensure a prosperous future for the whole sector. It puts farmers first in every decision it makes in agriculture.

Our formula is simple and it works. We listen to farmers, we work with farmers, and then we deliver the bankable, practical results that farmers need.

The minister has been on the road a lot these past months, and his efforts to build trade relations are indeed paying off. We signed a deal in India to safeguard market access for our pulse producers. We landed a breakthrough deal in Hong Kong, which can create export opportunities worth some $26 million for Canadian beef producers. We have gone to the Middle East to reopen markets such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan to Canadian beef, for the first time in five years.

Step by step, the Conservative government and the minister are reopening markets to Canadian producers, which previous Liberal governments and the former parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Malpeque, ignored and neglected.

The strategy is already building momentum, and it is sending a strong message to the rest of the global community that it is time their consumers once again enjoy our top quality Canadian products.

We want Canadian farmers and processors to get the credit they deserve for the high-quality products they bring to market. Our agricultural exporters are innovative and competitive, and we are working with them to expand their markets.

On April 7, we launched a new trade and market development program, part of the new growing forward agricultural framework. This program is part of growing forward, the policy framework for agriculture. The goal is to make sure exporters have the information and support they need to sell more products in more markets. By focusing attention on how we market our products, we are helping to build demand for Canadian goods and enhancing our competitive position.

In January, we announced the establishment of a market access secretariat. This measure came directly out of the recommendations made by the beef-cattle and pork value chain roundtables.

The secretariat will better coordinate government initiatives with producers and the industry and will help keep pace with international competitors. The creation of the secretariat has been very well received by producers.

Agricultural trade is critical to Canada's economy and prosperity. In 2008 our agriculture and agri-food exports were over $38 billion. Importantly, Canada's trade in agriculture and agri-food products contributed $11.1 billion to our trade surplus. Each of those dollars means jobs and livelihoods for Canadians right here at home. That is why when we as a government take measures to support agricultural trade, we are not just helping farmers. We are helping all Canadians.

This government is working through the World Trade Organization. We are working one-on-one with our trading partners to build bilateral and regional agreements, and we are working with industry, all with the common goal of building our agricultural trade and opening up new opportunities for our farmers and processors.

At the WTO, we remain committed to pursuing an ambitious outcome for the benefit of Canadian farmers and their families. We want an outcome that establishes a more level international playing field and provides new opportunities for our producers, processors and exporters. Our objectives at the WTO remain the elimination of all forms of export subsidies and the substantial reduction of and strengthened disciplines on trade-distorting domestic support, and real and significant improvements to market access.

Complimenting our efforts at the WTO, this Conservative government is also pursuing an active regional and bilateral trade negotiation agenda. In recent months, Canada has signed free trade agreements with the countries of the European Free Trade Association as well as Peru and Colombia. The agreements with Peru and Colombia will benefit a wide range of agriculture and agri-food stakeholders such as the grains, oilseeds, pulses, pork and beef exporters.

We have also completed negotiations with Jordan that promise other markets. Our negotiations with Korea are progressing well, and signing an agreement with that country could significantly benefit the agricultural sector.

In addition, the recent launch of official negotiations with the European Union bodes well for Canadian agriculture.

The European Union is Canada's second-largest trade and investment partner, as the $6.3 billion in bilateral trade in agri-food in 2008 attests. We want to strengthen that relationship and make it more profitable for our farmers.

Through these negotiations, Canada looks forward to exploring new and expanded opportunities for Canadian agricultural exporters and farmers. As we move forward, we will continue to consult closely with the entire agriculture industry regarding how best to advance Canada's interests.

The links between Canada and our largest trading partner, the United States, are deep, diverse and complex. We share a common border that stretches across nearly 9,000 kilometres of land and three oceans. We share the world's largest trading relationship. It has been said that every minute, $1 million in trade happens somewhere along the Canada-U.S. border. The free flow of goods is critical to our agricultural sector.

Canada's farmers depend on free and unfettered trade for their livelihoods. Our trade relationship reaps many rewards for Canada's agricultural sector. Unlike previous Liberal governments, this Conservative government is working to improve our historic relationship with the U.S. through a respectful dialogue instead of the childish attacks and insults. In doing so, Canada's Conservative government is working to improve and expand U.S. markets for cattle, hog and other agricultural products.

We are pulling out all the stops to fight mandatory country of origin labelling, or COOL, in the United States. Mandatory COOL will stifle trade with the U.S., especially for Canada's cattle and hog industries. We have consistently made it clear that current mandatory COOL regulations unfairly disadvantage Canadian producers. We are now requesting a further round of WTO consultations with the U.S. regarding mandatory country of original labelling.

In taking this step, we are defending the interests of Canadian producers as we have always done and will continue to do.

These consultations are our opportunity to talk with the American authorities and find a mutually acceptable solution.

We will work tirelessly until this issue is resolved in our producers' best interests.

There are challenges facing the industry, but the long-term signs are positive.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he agrees with this positive outlook for Canadian agriculture?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, I am happy to say that I do agree. I hear that from my farmers every weekend when I go home, whether it is in the coffee shops or at the round tables we like to host with them.

A number of great statements have been made about our tackling of market access, the development of the new market access secretariat, which is a combination of trade relations and sound science that is administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It is well recognized around the world.

When I go country by country re-opening markets I am constantly asked, “Where has Canada been?” Australia has been aggressive. The Americans have been aggressive. Even the EU has been aggressive marketers of its products. Where has Canada been?

It is tough to explain that we had 10 or 13 years where it did not matter what agriculture did. Programs drove trade down. It shrank. We relied more on the American market. We have to get past that. We have to work harder on these other markets, and we are doing that.

Other countries and organizations welcome our top quality Canadian products. The consistency and quality of the supply is second to none. We are not just bragging about our own products. Other countries are talking about top quality Canadian products.

In the course of hard red western wheat, of course countries use it around the world to blend to make the other stuff that they buy cheaply palatable, and they will continue to do that.

I had the opportunity to visit some pasta and flour mills in Morocco that use an inordinate amount of Canadian product. They like it. They are happy with the consistency of the Canadian product. I was dismayed at what they called a number one in the sample bag from our Canadian Wheat Board, but I will take that up with Wheat Board officials in the coming weeks.

Every industry is buoyed by the fact that we are reopening those markets. We are becoming less reliant. We are putting less eggs in that American basket, if the House will excuse the pun. However, we continue to work with our American neighbours to make sure that the free flow of goods is fair and that their restrictions are not affecting our producers in a negative way.

We have also begun to work a lot more closely with the Koreans to access their market.

We are not scared to go to the WTO. Rules-based trade is where everyone should be. Canada was a great contender at the table in Geneva, making our argument, and making sure that we had access to those new markets while we safeguarded our domestic systems here at home. It is a great responsibility, but one that I share with my colleague the Minister of International Trade. We are both very proud to represent Canada on the world stage.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Chair, a couple of months back the agriculture minister was in my riding at a round table held at the Keady United Church. Afterward we went over to the local sales barn right next door. All the commodity groups were covered. Each and every one in the supply management sector made a special point of thanking the minister for not just being in my riding but for this government's support of supply management.

What we heard that day from other non-supply management groups was how important it was for us not to put all our eggs in one basket and be dependent on the U.S. for all our trade. I would like the minister to tell us how important it is to look for other markets around the world for my producers and producers right across the country.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Certainly the easiest way to explain that, Madam Chair, is the more people we have bidding on our product, the better the price will be. There is a demand out there and we are seeing that on the global stage. We are also seeing it domestically.

One thing that producers need access to is to lift themselves a little further up that food chain rung and start to value add. We have certain sectors of our society that are not allowed to do that in a way that is cost effective. We have others that are. We look at those with envy from western Canada of course. I am sure we will have a little more debate on that particular enterprise later tonight.

Having said that, I am always buoyed by farmers wanting to take on the challenge to broaden their scope, to actually do more with their product, to diversify.

I know the members opposite make a big thing out of farm debt, but a good portion of that farm debt is because farmers are diversifying. They are changing to the new ways of doing things.

The young guys who are farming my land, and they cover now some 32,000 acres, use 65 foot air seeders. That scope of equipment was unheard of even a decade ago and GPS controlled steering up and down fields.

I had a great opportunity last fall, as I helped open a new ethanol facility in western Canada, to go for a ride on one of the new John Deere combines. This thing had a 36 foot header on it. We were running up and down a field with 55 to 60 bushel utility wheat at nine miles an hour and just floating along. The header is moving independently and the GPS is steering the combine. The innovation and the intensity of agriculture in this country now is phenomenal.

We still have smaller farmers who are doing very well. They tend to be more diversified and they offer us a good cross-section of top quality product. I commend them for the job they are doing too.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time this evening with the members for Bourassa and St. Paul's.

I might just say to begin with, on the issue related to market access and market development, that the important effort on behalf of Canada in this regard did not just begin in the last year or two or three. The minister might want to look at the important history of his department and the work of veteran public servants, such as Michelle Comeau and Michael Gifford and a range of others, who have given Canada a great foundation upon which to build in terms of access to markets around the world.

Tonight I want to especially ask the minister about the PFRA, the Prairie Farmer Rehabilitation Administration. Established in 1935 and headquartered in Regina, PFRA became and remains the single most successful and most respected agency of the Government of Canada in the west. Its expertise was second to none in soil conservation, water supply systems, irrigation, flood protection, pasture management, shelter belts, ground cover, community development and much more. It was hands on and it was trusted.

Largely now, unfortunately, it is over. PFRA no longer exists as a stand-alone entity within the Government of Canada. Its name has been abolished and it is now folded into some other branch of the Department of Agriculture.

I would like to ask the minister, why was PFRA killed?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Chair, nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly, the member opposite wants to keep agriculture in the past. Farmers do not. PFRA does not. It wants a broadened mandate and a bigger scope, and that is exactly what we have given it.

We folded everything together into the Agri-Environment Services Branch. PFRA is the lead role in that. It is doing a tremendous job. We use it internationally now, when it talks about water conservancy and grassland management around the world. That is the great role that it is playing. We have broadened that scope. We are happy to do that. We are proud to do that.

There is no such thing as the PFRA is dead and gone. It has been reborn even better than it was before.