:
I call this meeting to order as we continue on our agricultural policy framework study.
The motion was concurred in for travel to Washington next week, just so all of you are aware of that.
Joining us right now, from the department, we have Suzanne Vinet, Dr. Marc Fortin, and Gilles Saindon, who are going to be here for the first hour.
If you want to make opening comments--Marc, I believe you will be--please keep them to ten minutes or less. We'd appreciate that, as it will give us some time for questions.
It's a pleasure for me to be here to discuss with the committee the contributions of science and innovation to the agriculture and agri-food sector.
[Translation]
Scientists across Canada, and from across academic, private and public organizations, have made important contributions to agriculture. It's important we continue to harness the potential for innovation because agriculture and agrifood can provide solutions to national issues.
The health of Canadians is a priority, and we know that there is a link between nutrition and health. Another example of a contribution to a national priority is, of course, environmental sustainability, simply because most of the Canadian landscape is rural. Scientists also contribute to the energy sector, as we can derive energy directly from renewable biomass.
[English]
New knowledge, new ideas, and new scientific and market intelligence fuel innovation. They are also extending the range of products derived from the land beyond the conventional “food, feed, and fibre”.
While there's a good foundation and capacity for innovation in Canada, our ability to capture the benefits of innovation requires that we continue to be imaginative about how we work together, how we optimize the use of our resources, and how we manage our investments to ensure returns across the innovation value chain.
In 2005, AAFC launched a series of consultations across the country--11 regional consultations capped with a national symposium, which resulted in the release in May 2006, by , of the science and innovation strategy.
Some of the key principles of that science and innovation strategy are that we need to focus our investments on national priorities by aligning our research efforts with priorities in the sector; we need to focus on excellence of the research done by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; we need to extend the science and innovation capacity to the bio-based economy, beyond food, feed, and fibre; and, especially, we need to find new partnership arrangements to deliver that science and innovation capacity.
[Translation]
The agriculture and agrifood sector has several priorities: we aim to focus our investment on national priorities; ensuring excellence in the science performed at AASC; extend science and innovation capacity to the bio-based economy; and, above all, create new partnership arrangements to deliver science to all Canadians.
[English]
AAFC is already implementing some of the key directions given in budget 2007 in relation to innovation. The federal budget outlined the need for using the innovation capacity, both inside and outside government, through new partnerships across the private, the academic, and the public sectors. Over the years, AAFC has developed many forms of partnerships, and we have continued to innovate in that respect.
I'll limit my remarks to this.
I'll introduce my colleagues.
[Translation]
I am accompanied by Ms. Suzanne Vinet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, and Mr. Gilles Saindon, Director General, Science Bureau, Research Branch.
Mr. Pellerin went on to say:
The recent regulation of organic produce provided the federal government with the opportunity that they now appreciate the issues at stake; however, nothing changed: imported produce can bear an "Organic Canada" stamp!
I believe that labelling is very important. Farmers in my riding used to plant 2,000 tonnes of cucumbers every year, but then they stopped. The public started to buy cucumbers from India and China because they were cheaper. This year, however, we asked farmers to once again plant 2,000 tonnes of cucumbers, because the public are not buying what is available on the supermarket shelves, perhaps because the produce is no good.
Labelling is part of the policy framework and it is, therefore, very important to have a comprehensive grasp of this policy. What do you think?
:
Merci, monsieur le président. This is one of the issues that was raised by the representative of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency during testimony before the committee last week. The CFIA is responsible for implementing the labelling regulations. Obviously, certain aspects of the labelling regulations are highly technical.
What criteria must be met for a product to be labelled as being Canadian? Well, where the processing occurs is important, and 51% of the cost related to processing must be assumed by Canadian processors. These regulations relate more to the economic considerations of processing than they do to product origin. Product origin is covered by another regulation, and labelling to that effect is either voluntary or mandatory. That is the context in which we operate.
While the Agriculture Policy Framework was being developed, one of the questions that was raised time and time again was whether Canadian consumers were able to recognize a product as being made in Canada. This is important as consumers are perhaps more likely to buy Canadian products. When it comes to Canadian products, there is the whole issue of branding, and being able to recognize "Made in Canada" products. It is one of the aspects of the policy framework that we are in the process of reviewing in order to facilitate recognition of Canadian products. It is unrelated to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, which entails a different set of regulations.
Thanks for being here today.
I'm sure you know that recently the committee travelled across the country doing hearings. I was on one of those two legs, the eastern leg. What's becoming clear to me as we discuss these issues is there's what I'll call the farm side of the equation, which is the production side of the equation, and issues around efficiency and scale and new products that come on the market--higher yields, all those things. But we're also hearing from the other side of the equation, which I'll call the food side of equation, which is from the consumer level--what people want, what they're demanding. We've heard this many times recently. My riding in central Ontario traditionally was agricultural, traditional agriculture, and today there's still some commodity agriculture there, but the growth area is in a wide variety of things, including organic products and specialty and niche products.
I can just tell you, as a member of Parliament from that rural riding, I deal with at least as many questions to do with food as I do with what I'll call agriculture or farm. That's one of the things I've heard recently.
Interestingly, I was signing correspondence here when I first came in, and just in the last couple of weeks I've been getting a lot of letters from people asking questions about, as they call them, terminator seeds and about genetic use restriction technologies. There's a concern out there and there's the sense that there's progress and that we're developing and becoming more and more sophisticated and science can do more and more. On the other hand, maybe 30 or 40 years ago it was only the fringe that seemed to be concerned about these things, these kinds of issues. Now there are more and more mainstream consumers who are concerned about food, and not only food safety, but also what's going into their food and biodiversity. Terminator seeds is something on the horizon.
First of all, on the question of terminator seeds, in those areas, are you involved in that research? Are you involved with companies that are? Can you give me a sense of where that's at, and what you see as the future for that technology?
:
You're right, people are concerned about the quality of the food, the link between food, nutrition, and health. The question of genetic use restriction technology, the GURTs, was significantly debated some years ago. The technology was initially proposed by one company, Monsanto. It was dropped from their technology portfolio.
There is a sense that we need to take societal considerations into account when we invest in science and innovation. It's not just the science that's happening in the lab, but it's also what the market wants at the end of the day. We need to connect the science, the innovation, with market demand, with societal pressures or societal considerations.
In other countries a great deal of work is being done on biotech crops. The Europeans, despite the appearance of a reluctance to embrace GM crops, are patenting plant genes in large amounts.
I think from what's happened in the last ten years, the genetically modified plants are focused more now on industrial plants rather than food plants. I'm interpreting trends here.
The science and innovation strategy that Minister Strahl published emphasizes for the first time that AFC will focus research on the link between food, nutrition, and health. That had never been spelled out like this before. It's one of our seven science priorities.
:
This is the focus of the work at the INH, the Institute for Nutrisciences and Health, in Charlottetown, where we embark on this partnership with both NRC and the University of Prince Edward Island. Scientists are being recruited and staff is being put in place at the INH, as we speak.
We're also embarking in that direction with the St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg, with the University of Winnipeg faculty of medicine. The focus of the work is again to focus on this link between food, nutrition, and health.
These are initiatives that we did not have in place three years ago. These are new projects that are part of this science and innovation strategy that was announced by the minister last May, just about a year ago. It relates to this new priority, one of the seven priorities, of understanding the link between food, nutrition, and health.
Thanks to the witnesses for coming.
I would say at the beginning that I do think the research and innovation work that AAFC does is good work. But you'll hear from me and from a lot in the farming community that really you've almost forgotten about the key player in the system, and that's the primary producer. Or certainly this is the perception out there.
If you look at the research that the primary producers benefit from, it's really the research from the 1970s, when they did discoveries research. Canola was one of those varieties, and other barley varieties, even potatoes, were targeted to some of our microclimates in this country. Now we're dependent on partnerships with Monsanto and others, and they're looking at short-term gain for their mass markets that they can profit by. So I think there's a real shortcoming in Agriculture Canada in terms of discovery research.
In fact I could go to a number of witnesses, but I'll go to the ones from P.E.I., who said clearly, when they were before us, that in research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has lost touch with the farm community. The new direction in research is not targeted at the farm community. From their perspective, and I know it as well, dealing with Harrington station in P.E.I., there now isn't the rapport between the primary producers and researchers that there once was. Part of that was the policy decision due to the budget cutting in 1995; I realize that.
How do you respond to that? How do we get back to research? I've looked through the estimates, and if I go to your chart on strategic planning, really, other than the economic benefits for all, really none of those categories are specifically focusing on research at the primary production level other than, yes, we're going to find some of these value-added markets and so on. The theory is that the money will come back to the farmer. The problem is that it never does. How do we fix that problem?
Secondly, I wonder if you could provide for the committee a list--I've looked through all the documentation, and I can't find it anywhere, unless it's on this disc--of the research stations under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and what specifically they do in research. What's their specialty, I guess, for lack of a better word?
On that point, I might even say that one of the complaints with AAFC that I've heard internally--you might as well know it--is the way you manage your system now. There are a lot of man-hours and woman-hours spent on travelling the region in terms of a management perspective rather than actually doing on-the-ground research.
So perhaps you would cover some of those areas.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
There is no doubt as to the quality of the leadership at the Agriculture and Agri-food Canada Research Branch. Our entire country has benefited tremendously from its work over the past century.
I would like to discuss the Research Branch's strategic orientation. I know that you are working on a number of issues at any one time and, in agriculture, there is never a shortage of issues to be studied, especially with regard to plant genetics, animals, biomass research, etc.
Do you have a plan for the next five or six years? How is it decided? I know that you mandate research projects to universities, but you surely have an overall strategic orientation.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Agriculture is not my specialty. Generally, I focus on international trade, but we do often talk about agriculture. You seemed to be wondering about the relationship between health and agricultural and agri-food products. One dictum states that we are what we eat, and in my view, the relationship is indeed that direct. You have talked about innovation and science, two things that of course involve the production of primary products, but they also involve the processing of those products.
We also use biotechnology, genetic manipulation and chemicals in the production process. In international trade, we know that with the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the agriculture and agri-food goal is not to feed the population but to be productive, make money, export, and increase the trade balance as much as possible—in other words, the goal is to compete with other countries but not necessarily by applying the same rules they do.
For example, we know that the United States authorize the use of a fair number of chemicals that we do not authorize here. Take ice cream as an example of a processed product. As my colleague was saying earlier, in Quebec we can barely find ice cream made with real milk and real cream, like in the past. The products are all modified now.
Given the close relationship between health and nutrition, to what extent can we say that, in the long term, the biotechnologies and other sciences that modify products so profoundly with the stated goal of making agriculture profitable will not have negative impacts on health?
:
It is very important for new products to be subject to credible regulations. In Canada, we apply a regulatory system based on scientific knowledge, and we must continue generating scientific data to support regulatory approval.
I have examined the transcripts of the hearings you have held across Canada. In many cases, people bring up the regulatory framework. The Canadian regulatory framework must remain credible. There are no deficiencies in the system, and we have to continue generating the scientific data needed to support the regulatory framework and ensure that products put on the market need cause no concern to consumers. If there are worries, those worries should be based on scientific data and not on myths or fear mongering.
If we look around us at the grocery store, we can see that most products are not fresh. Fresh products include meat, milk, fruit and vegetables. However, most of the space is taken up by processed products. We are increasingly insisting that processed products bear labels indicating when they are health products, and where applicable, we have to ensure that the health-product label is credible, and based on credible scientific data.
:
Time isn't going to allow me to ask all of my questions, but I'm going to begin.
The matter was already touched on: who's driving the agenda?
A number of years ago, about ten years ago, in fact, rBST was at the top of the agenda for Monsanto, and perhaps other companies, but particularly Monsanto, for the dairy industry. To my best recollection, it wasn't the dairy industry—and we have the dairy people later this afternoon—that was driving the need for rBST but rather it was more the interest of Monsanto in profiteering in a drug product.
We talk about safe food. We talk about science that allows us to develop products. I guess the question is, are we developing new products? That's really where it should be at. Are we more interested in traits? But I guess the question would be, when we see what's happening in the pharmaceuticals, where we're creating products to aid and abet people's health but in fact we're really killing people.... And I know I can say that. You probably can't say that, but it's quite proven in many cases where people have ingested or have been given the wrong drugs. Just recently in the papers, in the last few days, a lady has been known to have died because she was given the wrong drugs. Most people today are using some form of drug and in many cases require another drug to overcome some of the harmful effects of the first drug.
We spend a lot of time and we spend a lot of money. Our health care costs are humongous because we've gone down that road. Yet on food safety, we are so careful. And we know that Canada has the safest food supply. How much of our scientific effort is being put into the area of creating safe food, when in fact that should not be where the impetus is? Rather, it should be on creating new products with traits, perhaps, where we develop and can develop niche markets. We've gone down that road, and I think there isn't anyone here who would doubt the safety of our food supply in this country.
:
Just before I suspend, I want to ask you to supply some extra information to the committee in writing.
As a farmer, I think there's no doubt that the biggest bang for our buck we've ever received from Agriculture Canada has been out of the research branch. The research program has made us who we are today. It's given us the genetics in our animal agriculture. It's given us the plant varieties to be successful as grain producers across Canada and in the international marketplace. So there's no question that this has been the greatest investment in the future of agriculture.
My concern has been that the focus in research has become more and more about secondary processing and more about food safety and environmental issues and is forgetting about that basic, primary agriculture at the farm gate.
So I'd like to see some numbers. What is the percentage of your activities and how many dollars are used in the area of primary producer research? You know, they are things like animal breeding, new plant varieties, animal health issues, and things of that nature. Then how much coming out of the research branch is for secondary processing? Then also, what are some of the long-term fundamental activities you're already starting to invest in, and how far out will that go?
If you can lay that out for us in writing and get that back to us as quickly as possible, I'd really appreciate that.
We do have to suspend, because we have witnesses coming up right after this.
Thank you very much for assisting us with our APF research.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start by thanking you and the committee for providing the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency with the opportunity to speak with you about the next generation of agriculture and agrifood policy.
The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency represents the egg farmers on 1,050 regulated farms. Our industry has producers in all provinces and in the Northwest Territories.
I will restrict my comments to the business risk management portion of the APF consultations, and talk primarily about managing two kinds of risk. One is market or price risk, and the other is risk due to a production challenge such as animal disease, weather, or feed problems.
When it comes to managing market or price risk, our producers believe our means of supply-managed marketing is in fact a business risk management program that needs to be recognized in the new APF. Supply management provides consumers with a stable supply of the kinds of products they need and want, while moderating producer prices.
Since 1972, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and our provincial counterparts have promoted high-quality eggs to Canadians, using supply management. It is widely recognized as a sustainable system and has received widespread support from our members of Parliament.
The next agriculture and agrifood policy should include all components of Canadian agriculture, including successful programs like supply management. Therefore, the policy needs to recognize and strengthen these successful programs, as well as play its more traditional role of finding new solutions to problems.
The consultative process for a new APF provides an excellent opportunity to recognize those programs that moderate farm incomes and increase the negotiating strength of farmers in the marketplace. In our view, supply management needs to be recognized in the new policy as a business risk management program because that is exactly what it is.
There has been a suggestion that supply management could be recognized as a tool in the new APF. To us, there is a significant difference between a tool and a program. Acknowledging supply management as a program recognizes that supply management actually provides to farmers a means by which to mitigate the risk of highly fluctuating prices in the marketplace.
You will note in your written brief that we have suggested wording that needs to be incorporated into the new policy. For the sake of time, I will not read that wording here, but the major thoughts captured are that the APF should integrate all components of Canadian agriculture; that supply management and the three pillars should be specifically named and recognized in the APF as a business risk management program; and that supply management needs to be defended in international agreements.
I would now like to turn my attention to the second kind of risk; that is, the production risk farmers face daily due to weather and disease threats. Our industry is no stranger to disease threats.
We've been instrumental in working with federal and provincial governments to prepare for possible events involving avian influenza. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and our colleagues in other poultry agencies have met several times with Canadian Food Inspection Agency officials and the Honourable Chuck regarding avian influenza preparedness.
The biggest single outstanding issue is the inadequacy of compensation available under the Health of Animals Act regulations when flocks are ordered destroyed. We disagree significantly on the ways to measure market value for layers. Interestingly, government has agreed that the compensation available under the Health of Animals Act does not cover off the true cost of disease outbreaks. But from here, we part ways.
Initially, we were told a year ago that government would look at phase two compensation for avian influenza outbreaks. We were told a program would be in place very soon. More recently, we have come to understand that phase two is essentially the review of the business risk management suite of programs. The process has been slow, and we do not see it gaining momentum any time soon.
We have specific comments regarding the current review of these programs. First, dealing with the new disaster framework, it is our understanding that there will be need for a federal-provincial negotiation whenever a payout is contemplated. Therefore, when disaster occurs, it is not at all certain that there will be adequate compensation in place, and it certainly won't be put in place quickly. In addition, we are uncertain of what constitutes a disaster under the framework.
CEMA believes that production insurance should be opened up to individual livestock producers and cover general declines in production without specific disease perils being named. We also want the door kept open for the possibility of having government-run production insurance to serve as a re-insurer for industry-led programs where specific disease perils are named.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is urgent that progress on these discussions move quickly. CFIA wants to move forward with avian influenza surveillance of domestic poultry flocks. However, producers are reluctant to participate, as they are uncertain of what will be provided to them if an avian influenza virus requiring flock depopulation is found. We believe surveillance is desirable, but it is difficult to support when we know egg farmers could be severely financially impacted. I know that our farmers would be much more comfortable proceeding with surveillance if we knew that the Health of Animals Act compensation would be adequate.
In summary, we recommend the following: the new agriculture and agrifood policy needs to explicitly recognize supply management as a business risk management program and needs to explicitly recognize the three pillars of supply management, which are producer pricing, import controls, and production discipline; an interim program should be established so the true costs of avian influenza disease outbreaks are compensated; production insurance should be opened up so it is available for livestock production and covers all perils; and the door should be left open to permit government-sponsored production insurance to serve as a re-insurer to industry peril-specific programs.
Thank you for your time and attention.
:
I thought it wasn't very favourable in regard to supply management and I thought I'd get some comments from you.
My next question, and Roger touched upon it, is that often in the past, not only in your sector but in others, a disaster happens and it takes time. Formulas have to be worked out. One government says to the other they're going to pay this and it goes back and forth, and eventually we get some kind of settlement, if any, but it takes time.
I've been thinking about the idea of a rapid response disaster program, where criteria ahead of time, for example with your association, could be worked out with the officials in the department, with percentages set and established between provincial and federal governments so that if something does happen, maybe we wouldn't have to wait three months, obviously, if money is allocated in the budget. Do you think it would work? Do you have any comments on that?
The motion is pretty straightforward. All that really needs to go to the House is that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food recommend that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food immediately rescind the changes announced to the Canadian family farm options program on April 20, 2007, and restore the provisions of the program as originally announced, and that this motion be made a report to the House.
It's pretty simple, Mr. Chair. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was the one who stated last July that “the new government is committed to helping farmers who are under financial stress”. The vehicle they announced to do that was the family farm options program, inclusive of $550 million to be paid out over two years.
The point is that this government brought the program forward to respond to a need that recognized that farmers across Canada have responded to the program by either utilizing it last year or making financial plans to utilize it in the second year.
What the minister has done is alter the rules late into the second year with his announcement on April 20, thus eliminating any producer who would have qualified. The minister has done this without any justification and no economic analysis of why, and the minister has an obligation to produce such justification. It's just absolutely unacceptable to the farmers affected.
Seeing that he hasn't done that, we gave him a question in writing prior to his appearing here the other day. Therefore this motion, as indicated, states that the program should be immediately reinstated.
I will just make two further points.
This is a sample of some of the letters we're getting from very concerned low-income producers. I will quote from this letter, directed to Mr. Strahl and copied to myself and a number of others:
We were encouraged to learn through our accountant that we could probably qualify for the options program, although we understood that the amount would be less than the previous year.
We were devastated and extremely angry to learn that you decided to cancel the program for those who had not qualified based on their 2005 tax return. We felt that it was cowardly, underhanded, and sneaky of you to announce this at the end of April, when farmers are generally too busy to drive their tractors to Ottawa to protest your abominable leadership.
We have a lot of letters in a similar vein.
The last point I would make, Mr. Chair, is that the officials who were before this committee the other day indicated that:
In total, the original funding for [the] Options [program] was $550 million to provide farm income, business planning, and skills development support and services. The revised total is [now] $304 million [based on the changes]. The difference of $246 million will be redirected to other agricultural priorities.
Really, Mr. Chair, this is money that the minister, by his announcement, has practically taken out of the pockets of low-income farmers who, with their financial advisers, had planned on using inventory optional adjustments, depreciation, etc.—all legal means. I would submit that it's similar to the case if, in the rest of Canadian society, an individual went out and bought $18,750 of RRSPs and the Minister of Finance decided three months after the fact that it doesn't qualify to reduce your taxable income load now. It's the same principle.
For farmers to be treated with such disrespect is unbelievable, and therein lies the reason for the motion, Mr. Chair.
:
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to that.
One of the problems with this is it seems as if all of a sudden the member for Malpeque has decided this is a program he wants to support. We spent the last year trying to get support for the program: no major farm group supported it at any point, that we could find.
The minister said he didn't get one single letter from any member of Parliament supporting the program. He got a lot of responses that indicated people didn't support the program. I think that it's important. I'm going to take some time to read some of those comments into the record that were made by MPs about this program, because I think it's important that we have that information. I think it's important we put it together in one package.
I want you to know I don't necessarily agree with the comments that are made here, but I think we need to note them. I'm going to quote a number of comments from MPs.
:
The first quote is going to be from Mr. Steckle. He said:
I'm hearing from a number of farmers who have called me about the program, and they immediately draw their conclusion that this is an exit program from farming--getting out of agriculture. It's a welfare program. Once farmers in the business, if they call themselves truly farmers, realize that their incomes are at that level, then they're basically not farming anymore. So this is an exit program.
Now, Mr. Chair, that doesn't sound like support for this program. He says, “Certainly when you look at the second year, reducing that by a further 25% or whatever, then really it is moving that person onto the welfare rolls. I don't understand.” So Mr. Steckle, in that statement, is clearly not supporting the program.
Our argument is that moving this money, as the minister is able to do now, will make more people eligible for farm support.
Mr. Bellavance has said, when he was speaking, “When this program was created, of course the Bloc Québécois said that it was not enough to solve the farm income crisis”, although he's good enough, actually, to say, “one cannot be opposed to helping the producers who are the most in need”. But there was no support for the program from there.
Mr. Atamanenko was fairly strong on this. He said:
From talking to farmers, I know there are a couple of concerns. One is the idea of a business plan and skills that are compulsory to participate in a program, the assumption being that these people aren't good farmers and that it's almost an insult, for want of a better word.
That was his analysis of the program. That would hardly be what I would call words of support for the program.
Mr. Atamanenko, again, said, “But isn't the assumption still that they're not victims of the market or they're not doing something right; that by going through this”, and I assume he means this program and the requirements for it, “they'll do something right and become better farmers? Is that the implication?” I'd say clearly he's not supporting the program at that point.
Mr. Atamanenko, again: “The other feedback I'm getting is on this whole idea of off-farm income being included in the cap of $25,000.” Later, he says, “The feeling is that it's really not fair that some people miss the program by a couple of thousand dollars because somebody in their family has worked as a waitress or something in town.”
So, again, we're not getting the support that we need for the program, in order to maintain it, from the people who are around this table.
Mr. Easter has made a number of comments about the program, one of them is, “The problem here, and my major concern with this program, is that the government failed to provide immediate cash in the spring as they had indicated they would”, which was not accurate, because we had provided support to farmers, and he goes on to say, “which could have been under an ad hoc program based on what the problem really is, which is low commodity prices. Instead, we have this program”, and this was quoted in the House today, I think, he says, “which is clearly a blame-the-victim approach.”
Now, that sounds like a condemnation of the program to me, and certainly not one in which he's supporting it.
Again, he goes on to say:
If you're a farmer who's farmed for 30 years--and I know a lot of them--ten years ago their net worth was $1 million. Today they're going in to you with their head down, saying that they're going to have to take a skills development program. This is all wrong. The problem is low commodity prices, not skills. That's where the problem is.
Again, he says:
There is no question that these services are fine. The problem is that the whole thrust--and this program is symbolic of that--is as if it's a skills management program, when it's a policy program within Canada as a whole that results in low commodity prices.
So, again, Mr. Easter is very clearly not supportive of the program.
I think probably the most definitive statement he makes is this one, which says:
My concern also is that you see the low uptake. You see exactly the same questions coming from at least three of the four parties, saying that they've heard from people that it isn't working and it's still in its pilot stage.
Well, that would be a clear indication we should do something about that. If everyone is willing to support it, it's a reason to take a look at it and see whether it's working. He says:
Can't we be flexible enough, even as a public service, to say, okay, with a 10% uptake, clearly it's not working? If we have to extend it and we're only going to get a marginal increase, why don't we re-examine the criteria?
Well, that's what the minister's done.
Why don't we re-examine what we're trying to do here? And, above all, does the farming community need a lesson in business management to do business plans now when they're thinking about surely just getting through the year?
So, Mr. Chair, I think it's pretty clear that we don't have support for this program from the other side, and we haven't had it over the last year, or other people as well have had a list of farm organizations here that do not express their support for the program. I can go through them slowly here: the National Farmers Union, Terry Pugh said they called it a “hidden transition program” to get farmers off the land or to raise their skills. Well, that wasn't accurate, but that was their perception of what the program was.
Keystone Agricultural Producers--