AGRI Committee Report

Conservative Minority Report   --- June 21, 2007

The Government Members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture are disappointed with the delay in the tabling of this report. Throughout this process, Government members have been committed to allowing for feedback from the very people the new Agriculture Policy framework will affect the most – the primary producers.  Given the importance of producer-input in the development of these new policies, it was imperative that this report be tabled in a timely manner.  It was our goal to have the public hearings late last fall and early this spring. However, because of Opposition delays caused by revised agendas and debate on Members motions, we were unable to have the hearings until late April when many farmers were already beginning spring preparation work. The delay was unfortunate.

The Government Members felt that it was important that the Committee produce a unanimous report. We worked to this end but it was not possible. This does a disservice to the producers who made their views known. It was our opinion that the recommendations should reflect the presentation of the witnesses and not the specific political will of the members. With the exception of Recommendation 21, we believe the recommendations generally reflect the testimony of witnesses. Unfortunately, Number 21 is incomplete and unbalanced and fails to accurately reflect the variety of, and indeed, the majority opinion in Western Canada. Testimony was given that indicated that farmers had very different positions and that there was no consensus with regard to the role of the Canadian Wheat Board. Witnesses took stands on both sides of the issue, with some declaring that the CWB met their marketing needs while others insisted that the Board was an impediment to their ability to manage their farms and insisted on the need for freedom to make their own marketing decisions.

Clearly, the CWB is a contentious issue and it is unfortunate, but not unexpected, that the Opposition would once again fail to represent both sides of the issue. It is the opinion of Government Committee members that there were several ways to deal with this issue that would have allowed for a unanimous report. Allowing both positions to be presented in the text without a specific recommendation was one option. Another could have allowed for two recommendations, acknowledging the different positions of producers. A third option could have been to copy the practice of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in their Report 6 which allowed for a majority recommendation with a separate section to allow for a Government response and recommendation. We would have supported a balanced representation of farmers’ views.

In order to avoid confusion, it is important to point out that supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board are completely different systems. One is national in scope and contains price, supply and export/import controls. The other is a regional, coercive agency without managed supply, controlled price or export/import measures. As well it has very limited support from its participants as evidenced by the results of the barley plebiscite and polling. Its provisions apply only to a limited region.

Producers are aware, as are Government Members, that there are no national single desk marketing boards in existence in Canada but we recognize the jurisdiction of the provinces over marketing boards.

The Government Members of the Committee wish to expand on the report with the following recommendations:

Orderly marketing and the CWB

The Government Members of the Committee recommend that the federal government continue to recognize the right of the provinces to establish orderly marketing structures as a tool,

Government Members of the Committee also recommend that with respect to the western Canadian Wheat Board, producers be allowed to voluntarily participate.

Tax Recommendation

The Government Members of the committee recommend that the government consider implementing policies to reduce taxation on primary agriculture production, as part of the government’s strategy to stabilize producers’ income in the long term and maintain Canadian agricultural competitiveness in the world.

Agriculture Programming Recommendation

The Government Members of the committee recommend that the Government undertake a review of all Agriculture programs introduced prior to January 23, 2006 that are still in place to date and examine the effectiveness of those programs for primary producers and the agriculture industry, and report back to the Committee.

Competitiveness and Business Risk Management Recommendation

The Government Members of the committee recommend that Agricultural Business Risk Management Programming should be designed while keeping in mind that a competitive balance must be maintained whether it is within a particular commodity industry or between the different sectors of Canadian agriculture.  We prefer that future programs be trade-neutral and do not distort the domestic or international market place.

Foreign Subsidies and Trade Barriers Recommendation

The Government Members of the Committee recommend that Canada pursue the Doha round of negotiations, with the goal of reducing trade distorting domestic support, eliminating export subsidization, and gaining market access, while aggressively representing the interests of the various sectors of Canadian agriculture.

The Government Members of the committee wish to make a stronger recommendation than that of the committee as whole and recommend that the government aggressively pursue greater access to international markets specifically the European Union and United States.  It is also recommended that Canada take every opportunity to ensure the reduction of market distorting subsidies and trade barriers created by our international trading partners.

Environment Recommendations

The Government members of the Committee also recommend that in the implementation of government programs or initiatives including environmental farm plans, that private property rights be adhered to, and that compensation to the landowners for loss of present and future use of said landscape be borne by the public.

The Government members of the Committee also recommend that participation on federal agricultural environmental programs be voluntary.

The Government members of the Committee recommend that any federal program or funding involving caveats on private property limit such caveats to 25 years.

The Government Members of the committee fully support government programming to encourage best environmental practices in agriculture but recommend the Federal Government play a leadership role in ensuring that farmers are not negatively impacted by environmental polices and regulations.