AGRI Committee Report

PREFACE

Nothing is permanent except change.
Heraclitus

Canadian agriculture is a mosaic of vibrant industries essential to the country’s economic health. For public and private decision-makers, however, that mosaic becomes a puzzle when it comes to developing and implementing agricultural policies and programs.

Governments around the world have always played a role in the development of agriculture, which is why, even though the demographic weight of agriculture in Canada is now only approximately 1%, the sector still has a firm hold on the attention of members of the political class. This situation is clearly not unrelated to the sector’s economic and social importance and to its evolution over the past 20 years. The agricultural sector, which used to be a chain which farmers were used to dealing only with the nearest links, has evolved into a complex and far-reaching web. Dealing as they do with a sector which combines agriculture and agri-food and where the concentration of industries meets the divergent interests of the numerous participants, governments now see their role becoming more problematical and their actions achieving broader scope.

Some analysts feel agriculture is in the midst of a crisis, others that it is merely in a transition phase which has nevertheless lasted for a number of years. Regardless of the diagnosis, major producer countries such as the United States and the member countries of the European Union have maintained a central role, despite calls for state withdrawal from the sector. What is more, farmers are the central focus of those countries’ agricultural policies and programs, either through direct price support in the United States or a multifunctional approach in Europe.

Canada is currently proceeding with a redeployment of its agricultural strategy, and there is every indication that the form agriculture will take tomorrow is being decided today. The legislation and programs that emerge at one point in history are always based on the dominant and persistent political, economic and social reality of the time. This was true when Canada’s major agricultural policies, such as supply management, the cooperative movement and the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement, were adopted, and it is still the case today. One fact is becoming increasingly clear: farmers no longer have the influence they used to have within the agri-food web, and the chronic weakness in the prices of many commodities means that their share of each dollar of agri-food expenditures is declining. It is partly to offset this lack of influence that Europe and the United States have made the farmer the central component of their policies and programs.

The fact that parliamentarians — members of the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Liberal Task Force — are simultaneously proceeding with three studies is not a mere coincidence, but rather an indication of the critical situation facing Canadian farmers. Having so many parliamentarians making farmers their central concern is a powerful signal to those developing Canadian agricultural policy.

The Standing Committee is pleased to make room in the initial pages of its report for some of the comments which farmers made to it in the course of its consultations across Canada:

A Canadian commitment to agriculture is essential. Currently it seems that public attention is drawn to the farm sector around issues of food safety, environmental issues, or the farm crisis. We have to move much beyond that and recognize that a great deal of work has been put forward to address those issues.

Ms. Betty Green, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 44-10:10, Stonewall, February 18, 2002.

One of the things we need to look at — and I think this is where the federal government can play a key role — is assuming those costs when it’s a consumer benefit, the whole issue of food safety.

Mr. Randy Eros, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 44-10:25, Stonewall, February 18, 2002.

Programs in the past have been designed to stay within a budget. We need a program designed to meet the needs of the agriculture industry. We need that program now. AIDA and CFIP are examples of programs that were designed to fit a budget, not address a need.

Mr. Murray Downing, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 45-17:35, Brandon, February 18, 2002.

Now more than ever before, money needs to be used wisely (…) There is no need to put a new state-of-the-art stainless steel roof on a building that is destined to collapse. We’d better start putting some new foundations under this economy before it’s too late.(…) Laying the foundation creates jobs, ensures a supply of raw products for the value-added industries, builds infrastructure, and keeps the working middle class happy, productive, and financially healthy.

Mr. Andrew Dennis, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 45-17:45, Brandon, February 18, 2002.

Certainly there has been in agriculture a paradigm shift. We’ve seen that unfolding here in recent years. Along with the amount of change that’s happened in the industry, there have been such natural disasters as droughts, which have severely affected primary producers. On the issue of long-term safety nets, I think the quicker we move in this country to one whole-farm income support program the better we’ll all be. We need to focus and target our resources carefully.

Mr. Armand Roy, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 46-11:50, Davidson, February 19, 2002.

On February 6, the honourable Minister Lyle Vanclief unveiled to this committee details of what has been phrased a “new architecture for agriculture in Canada”. I would like to submit that his initiative to move from crisis management to risk management, and to branding our Canadian agricultural commodities into more valuable products by advancing food safety and environment, is a good one. I would further like to suggest that these noble goals, together with incentives for renewal and encouragement for science and innovation, are dependent on the success of commercial farmers being able to make not just a net positive cashflow, but true profits in their business.

Mr. Jim Mann, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 46-9:45, Davidson, February 19, 2002.

My grandfather homesteaded. He was a homesteader, and my father was born in a sod shack on that homestead. Our family has farmed for four generations, living and working on the same farm. (…) Here we are, four generations later, less than 100 years. That’s not a long time in the history of most nations. We find ourselves in a situation where for many farm families what this government does in the next five or ten years will determine whether or not there’s another generation of farmers.

Mr. Newton Myers, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 47-19:25, Swift Current, February 19, 2002.

We were pretty loyal to our communities at one time. The loyalty is eroding as we have to make tough decisions now to stay viable. These are some of the things that I think people forget when you’re talking about becoming more efficient. We have to become more effective. We have to do this, that, and the next thing. Who are we really doing this for? It hasn’t really improved our bottom line. We grow more, do it better, and have fewer weeds. Who gets paid in the end?

Ms. Linda Trytten, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 47-21:20, Swift Current, February 19, 2002.

There are serious concerns relating to the impact of GMOs on organic production. Canola, for all intents and purposes, is no longer viable as an organic crop. The introduction of GMO wheat would probably eliminate organic grain production in Canada.

Mr. Allan Webber, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 48-10:55, Grande Prairie, February 20, 2002.

The current issue facing the pulse industry in Canada is the inclusion of peas, lentils, and chickpeas in the U.S. Farm Bill. Our experience in the past with these unfair subsidies is that they place an undue hardship on producers in Canada. I believe the role of the government should be to lobby the U.S. not to include these crops in this bill. I have been told that if they are included the production will increase. This will certainly put burdensome supplies in the market and devalue our product. I think some lobbying now could prevent a lot of future hardships in our industry.

Mr. Dave Hegland, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 48-11:15, Grande Prairie, February 20, 2002.

Some federal bureaucrats appear to have a phobia about farmers not taking money out of their NISA accounts when they’re triggered. Farmers themselves are the best judges of when they need the money.

Mr. Robert Filkohazy, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 49-9:50, Vulcan, February 21, 2002.

So what is the real problem? In my eyes, it is the century-old lack of market power that is the root cause of this farm income crisis. There are several reasons why this lack of market power hits the family harder today than it did 20 or 30 years ago. We have seen a rapid concentration of mergers of companies that produce goods and services needed on the farm input side, like banks, and chemical, fertilizer, machinery and fuel producers. We have seen the same thing happening on the farm output side, with transportation, handling, processing and retailing.

Mr. Jan Slomp, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 49-11:50, Vulcan, February 21, 2002.

Changes in federal policy can play a critical role in reversing decades of food system concentration, while reducing environment degradation, which will improve financial sustainability of family farms, improve water protection and food quality. At a time when every country must begin immense changes in how it approaches issues concerning the environment, its population, and its power structures, these proposed policy changes could only strengthen Canada and its people.

Ms. Rochelle Eisen, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 50-19:05, Kelowna, February 21, 2002.

I’m really worried that we’re going to be implementing identity tracking and tracing systems that make it really difficult for small and medium-sized farmers to keep up with the bureaucracy and the paperwork that might be involved. I want to know that community-based economics, like the direct farm marketing, what we do with the organic produce delivery service, and other kinds of activities that are in a local circle are not thwarted by regulations that require lots of extra work on behalf of the farmer.

Ms. Lisa McIntosh, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 50-18:50, Kelowna, February 21, 2002.

Federal policy does not recognize the contribution made by organic farmers and gardeners in sustaining and enhancing the environment or their economic contribution, because very often it’s not in the GNP

And most important, Canada’s agrifood policy is based on the assumption that our job is to grow edible commodities for export and not to feed the population of Canada.

Now, I’ve nothing against trade. I think trade is a very important element of our food system. I personally am quite dependant on the three big Cs: coffee, citrus, and chocolate. The goal needs to be, as Brewster said in his first book, From Land to Mouth, to feed the family and trade the leftovers.

Ms. Cathleen Kneen, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 51-9:35, Kamloops, February 22, 2002.

All we’re asking for is a common sense approach to that bill. And perhaps if we have species at risk that are on our places we’re doing something right. Perhaps we should have funding to protect or to continue to protect those species on our places rather than have the threat of that land being expropriated from us. If agricultural land is taken out of production for the species at risk legislation, then it should be fully compensated for.

Mr. Peter Phillip, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 51-9:40, Kamloops, February 22, 2002.

Grain Growers of Canada, using Ag Canada’s number, has estimated the economic injury is $1.3 billion a year for our growers. It is lost revenue as a result of foreign policies. Our producers have no means to hedge against this injury. We have no risk management strategies to avoid it. Canadian farm programs are ill‑equipped to deal with this long-term injury. Disaster programs are not effective because, in the long term, economic injury tends to eliminate the gross margins that farmers would earn growing grains and oilseeds.

Mr. Ken Bee, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 54-9:45, Grand Bend, March 11, 2002.

Let me say again, that risk element is a factor, that consolidation. We must talk about it. Politically we have very little voice, being less than 2% of the population, but when it comes to importance, what is more important than food? We need it every day.

Mr. Peter Twynstra, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 54-10:30, Grand Bend, March 11, 2002.

In order to be successful, however, the new contract with Canadians requires a new paradigm on the part of the agriculture sector, the public sector, and the Canadian public. That paradigm was best reflected in the Prime Minister’s remarks, already quoted, which form the fundamental premise of OFA’s arguments. I’ll quote again from the Prime Minister:

“The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is integral to our high standard of living and unmatched quality of life.”

The OFA agrees, and strongly suggests that bold and immediate action such as suggested above be taken to ensure that the Prime Minister’s words remain true.

Mr. Al Gardiner,. Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 55-9:50, Napanee, March 12, 2002.

Agriculture in Canada is at a crossroads. We have an aging population of farmers that have been and are contributing substantially to Canada’s standard of living and to Canada’s growing balance of payments. Many in Canada are living better today because of Canada’s farmers, that is, except for the farmers themselves. Without substantial changes, this cannot and will not continue.

Mr. John Williamson, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 55-11:50, Napanee, March 12, 2002.

Canada has some of the best agricultural producers in the world for all kinds of productions. We have an international reputation for the quality of our wheat, our cattle, hogs, maple syrup, you name it. We have to build on this reputation and our government must also be competitive in relation to the US and European governments so that we producers can compete with the American and European ones.

Mr. Laurent Pellerin, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 56-14:25, St-Hyacinthe, March 13, 2002.

Just for fun, try to fry a $100 bill. Choose either vegetable or animal fat to fry your $100 bill in. Look at the finished product and see how it will taste. When you do that, you will see that it is not just the economic aspect of the issue that counts in agriculture.

Mr. Pierre Gaudet, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 56-15:25, St-Hyacinthe, March 13, 2002.

Aid should decline as the business grows, in accordance with the principle that large businesses, even if they are very environmentally friendly, they help to empty the land. This is a social choice. We are setting an order of magnitude. If a farm has more than 100 animals, more than 100 hectares or more than a certain gross income, he (sic) will have to do without public support from the government.

Mr. Maxime Laplante, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 57-9:35, Montmagny, March 14, 2002.

We would also like Canadian agricultural policies not to be wall-to-wall policies, from one end of Canada to the other. We would like to have agricultural policies that take into account the regional nature of the 10 Canadian provinces. Canadian agricultural producers do not have the same mentality or way of doings things across the country, and Canadian agricultural policies should not be wall-to-wall policies. It would be highly demotivating for our farmers, who form the basis of the Canadian economy.

Mr. Ghislain Cloutier, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 57-9:30, Montmagny, March 14, 2002.

If you play Australian-rules football, you have short-sleeved shirts and go up in the air, with fists and everything, with no protection at all. Some of you have seen it on television. It’s the same with Australian and New Zealand agriculture. There is no protection. Then we come to the Americans. You heard about the Farm Bill this morning. The Americans and Europeans have total protection. We’re in the middle, like rugby union players, with very little protection

Mr. Frazer Hunter, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 58-10:56, Truro, March 19, 2002.

I think that at all levels of organizations, governments, and industry, we must work together to make the public aware that agriculture is food and that, if you eat, you have an interest in agriculture in this country.

Mr. Charles Keddy, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 58-10:56, Truro, March 19, 2002.

On agriculture literacy — in other words, ag awareness — we think there’s a place for the government to play a role here. We need a focused industry-government national strategy to raise the level of education within the Canadian public, the reason being that a lot of us feel that today’s consumer is three to four generations removed from actually being on the farm (…). They’ve lost touch with how food is produced, and they need to be re-educated.

Mr. Robert MacDonald, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 59-11:40, Summerside, March 20, 2002.

Over the years we have absorbed many, many additional costs without the accompanying increase in price, and we simply cannot continue to operate this way. The government is promoting this policy in order to meet consumer demands. Therefore, the government should either cover the cost of the program or else develop some means by which producers can receive this elusive premium from consumers.

Mr. Vernon Campbell, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 59-12:00, Summerside, March 20, 2002.

In keeping with our vision towards the future of the farming industry, government has a role to play in ensuring there is a next generation of agriculture producers in our country. The number of farmers is decreasing across Canada, and the average age of the remaining farmers is increasing. The high cost of entering the dairy industry is prohibitive, and there must be a focus on new entrant programs or other such initiatives to encourage and assist the next generation of agriculture producers.

Mr. Robert Speer, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 60-10:10, Miramichi, March 21, 2002.

Research funded by corporations is very susceptible to bias and is used for the profit of the company and not for the good of society. The government should be involved in conducting and funding unbiased research. There are also areas of research that would not take place if there were no public funds available. Private corporations are only interested in research that could turn a profit. Research that could enhance the quality of life and the sustainability of our environment would not be a priority for them.

Mr. Ben Baldwin, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 60-10:35, Miramichi, March 21, 2002.

To ensure growth in our sector, the primary sector must be encouraged to get more involved in food processing and product development. By adding value to raw products made here, we will stimulate employment and help the primary sector remain viable. Efforts must be made to market value-added products and make stakeholders aware of this point so that the processing sector adequately supplements the primary sector. Producers must cooperate with each other and carefully target their marketing efforts.

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture, Looking to the Future, presentation to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 61, Ottawa, April 11, 2002, p. 2.

Canada should develop a national fur farming strategy. Fur farming strategies should identify crucial fur farming support infrastructures such as quality control, genetic development, research and development, training, demonstration and centralized feeding facilities, funding mechanisms, and all the things that you need to implement a proper strategy over a long period of time.

Mr. Mervin Wiseman, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, no. 61-09:45, Ottawa, April 11, 2002.