| REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE | TUESDAY, December 4, 2001 |
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
has the honour to table its
EIGHTH REPORT
Your
Committee, which was authorized by the Senate to examine international trade in
agricultural and agri-food products, and short-term and long-term measures for
the health of the agricultural and the agri-food industry in all regions of
Canada, has, in obedience to its Order of Reference of March 20, 2001, proceeded
to that inquiry, and now tables an interim report entitled, Looking South:
U.S. Agriculture and Agri-Food Policy in the New Century.
Respectfully submitted,
Leonard J. Gustafson
Chair
LOOKING SOUTH:
The
Honourable Leonard Gustafson
The Honourable John Wiebe: Deputy
Chair
December
2001
MEMBERSHIP
The Honourable Senators
|
Liberals Michel Biron |
Conservatives Leonard Gustafson (Chair) |
(*Ex officio members)
June
M. Dewetering
Research
Co-ordinator
Daniel Charbonneau
Clerk of the Committee
Other
Senator who participated on this fact-finding mission:
Mira Spivak
ORDER OF REFERENCE
Extract of the Journals
of the Senate, Tuesday, March 20, 2001:
The Honourable Senator Wiebe moved, seconded by the
Honourable Senator Banks:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry be authorized to examine international trade in agricultural and agri-food
products, and short-term and long-term measures for the health of the
agricultural and the agri-food industry in all regions of Canada;
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the
subject and the work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry during the Thirty-sixth Parliament be referred to the
Committee; and
That the
Committee submit its report no later than June 30, 2002.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Paul C. Bélisle
Clerk of the Senate
BILATERAL
AGRICULTURAL TRADE DISPUTES
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOODS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
AREAS
FOR BILATERAL COOPERATION
From 30 July to 2 August 2001, select members of the Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry travelled to Washington, D.C. for meetings
with legislators, bureaucrats, agricultural lobbyists and other interested
parties (see
the Appendix for a list of the groups,
and the main issues raised in the meetings). Senators met with members of the
U.S. Senate and House of Representatives agriculture committees and the
bipartisan Congressional Rural Caucus, as well as the staff of the House of
Representatives Committee on Agriculture. Meetings were also held with
representatives of the United States Department of Agriculture, the United
States International Trade Commission, the Office of the United States Trade
Representative, the American Farm Bureau, the National Farmer's Union, the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers and
the American Farmland Trust.
Such issues as the proposed U.S. Farm Bill, bilateral agricultural trade
disputes, conservation, rural communities, corporate concentration, genetically
modified foods and biotechnology, and areas for bilateral cooperation were
raised during the meetings. This report summarizes the points of view expressed
by the groups and individuals with whom Committee members met and provides
recommendations to guide the development of Canadian agriculture and agri-food
policy in the new century.
After conducting field hearings and hearings in
Washington, D.C., and receiving comments on its Draft Farm Bill Concept Paper,
on 27 July 2001 the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture passed the
Committee’s farm bill proposal, The Farm Security Act of 2001, H.R. 2646.
Committee members were informed that the proposal was expected to be debated in
the House of Representatives in September. [1]
It was also noted, however, that the U.S. Senate has a role to play in the
development of the next fFarm
bBill
and there is some speculation that the proposal from the Senate will be
“markedly different” than what was approved by the House of Representative
Committee on Agriculture.[2]
According to many groups and individuals, the House of
Representatives Committee on Agriculture’s farm bill proposal would provide
greater flexibility and predictability, countercyclical support, and enhanced
participation in soil and water conservation. It would rationalize the temporary
emergency assistance that has been provided annually for the past few years, and
implement a more rational policy for agricultureal
assistance. Although the proposal resembles the 1996 Farm Bill in some ways, it
would add a countercyclical payment element triggered when a crop’s price,
adjusted for fixed decoupled payments, falls below the target price, and have a
target price system similar to that in place prior to 1996. A variety of trade
programs, fixed decoupled payments and marketing loans would be continued. There
was some support expressed by groups and individuals for decoupled payments,
which they believe enable farmers to make rational decisions.
One of the most significant provisions in the House of
Representatives Committee on Agriculture’s proposal would see
baseline spending for soil, water and wildlife programs increase by more
than 75%, representing more than $16.5 billion in additional funding over ten
years. With some groups and individuals describing the proposal as “one of the
greenest bills ever,” the funding would enable farmers, on a cost-shared
basis, to meet regulatory requirements and modify their farming practices.
While farmers are grateful for the government’s
support of their industry and for the high level of financial support anticipated in the next farm bill,
a number of groups and individuals told Committee members that lower levels of
government involvement in agriculture are better for the industry. They also
stressed that a “one size fits all” support system does not work well, since
there are many farmers in the United States that are highly efficient, good at
marketing and doing well. As well, the suggestion was made that farm support in
the United States has enabled a “cheap food” policy; from this perspective,
farm support is actually a subsidy for consumers rather than support for
farmers.
Finally, Committee members were told that the House of
Representatives Committee on Agriculture’s proposal would
provide
“income support” for farmers, which is a broader concept than “subsidy.”
Since fixed decoupled and countercyclical payments are not linked to production,
they can be classified as income support. Marketing loans, which are linked to
production, are not generously supported and thus might be viewed as a marketing
tool.
The Committee was fortunate that its fact-finding trip
occurred during such an important time in the evolution of agricultural support
in the United States. We were struck by the level and range of financial support
contemplated, the type and level of funding for conservation initiatives
proposed, and the merits of such a systematized review of agricultural support.
Nevertheless, we continue to be concerned –
as we have been for some time –
about several
of the ways in which the United States supports its farmers.
We feel that a U.S. policy focussed
less on subsidies and more on income support must involve actions consistent
with this funding direction. Unless
appropriate actions are taken to implement policy changes, the changes are
meaningless.
The Committee believes that there are lessons to be
learned from the U.S. approach. In particular, we support the focus placed on
conservation within the House of Representative Committee on Agriculture’s
proposal, and believe that this funding direction supports the notion of
multifunctionality that has been discussed within Canada – and in other
countries – in recent years. It is also consistent with the views expressed by
witnesses appearing before us in Ottawa, some of whom are advocating support for
farmers to reflect their role as stewards of the land. From this perspective,
the Committee recommends that:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada study the application of the concept of multifunctionality to Canadian agriculture. Following this examination, a report should be made to the agriculture committees of the Senate and the House of Commons regarding the extent to which this concept can be implemented within Canada. This report should be made no later than 30 April 2002.
The Committee also supports periodic, rather than ad
hoc, review of agricultural spending and policies. We believe that, in the
past, changes to Canadian agricultural policy and levels of support have been
crisis driven, with the result that policy changes have not, in all cases, been
rational. As a result, the Committee recommends that:
Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada explore the feasibility of formalized, periodic review of
agriculture and agri-food policy in a manner similar to that which is undertaken
in the United States with its farm bill process.
The Committee believes that support should be provided
to farmers in recognition of their role as stewards of the land and that a regular
and rational examination of agriculture and agri-food policy would
contribute greatly to improved circumstances in the agriculture and agri-food
industry.
BILATERAL AGRICULTURAL TRADE
DISPUTES
While the Committee was in Washington, D.C., several
bilateral agricultural trade disputes existed. One of the most significant
concerned grain trade between Canada and the United States. With the United
States involved in the ninth investigation of bilateral grain trade since 1990,
the point was made that the United States and Canada market their grain
differently. In the United States, large, private sector companies are the norm;
there is a perception that, within Canada, there is one large, government-backed
agency. As a result, some farmers in the U.
S. have concerns about: a lack of choice in terms of dual marketing
in Canada, resulting in a lack of competition; the Canadian Wheat Board’s
perceived lack of transparency; and a potential government “bailout” of
the Canadian Wheat Board if needed.
The Committee was told that American farmers are
particularly upset about the Canadian Wheat Board when grain prices are low and
exchange rates are not in their favour. As well, they may have difficulty
exporting their wheat to Canada because of varietal and other restrictions.
While it is probably accurate that U.S. grain farmers
are more agitated when grain prices are low, Committee members believe that this
is also the case during election years, when American legislators are perhaps
more vulnerable to the strong agricultural lobby. In reviewing the history of
this bilateral trade irritant, it is clear that there is some link between
investigations of Canadian grain trade and the U.S. election cycle.
Unfortunately, these investigations involve considerable time and cost for
farmers on both sides of the border, which is particularly unfortunate in times
such as these, when farmers throughout North American are in crisis, many are
operating below the cost of production, and almost all receive an inadequate
return within the food chain.
The Committee believes that investigations of bilateral
grain trade must be avoided in future. American farmers must be convinced that
Canada is a fair trader in grain. In order to preclude future investigations,
and thereby avoid the loss of time and costs and instead focus on the positive
aspects of our bilateral relationship, the Committee recommends that:
The
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Ministers of
International Trade and Agriculture and Agri-Food,
meet with the United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of
Agriculture at the earliest opportunity to discuss a long-term resolution to
American concerns about Canada-U.S. grain trade.
While dialogue with American legislators, bureaucrats,
farmers and lobbyists, and visits by them to the Canadian Wheat Board, are
useful educational tools, Canadian grain farmers must have certainty that they
will not face a high probability of investigation during each U.S. election
year. The Committee is cognizant of the beneficial meetings and discussions that
occur within the context of the Record of Understanding, and believes that these
too are useful in educating Americans about the nature of Canadian grain trade.
From time to time, other bilateral agricultural trade
irritants also arise. During the Committee’s fact-finding trip, there was some
discussion about the Prince Edward Island potato wart and the time taken to
re-open the U.S. border to P.E.I. potatoes. Although the Canadian view is that
too much time was taken, Committee members were informed that, in the realm of
sanitary and phytosanitary issues, the resolution was “very speedy,” with
other sanitary and phyto-sanitary cases sometimes taking years to resolve. It
was argued that Americans feared the potato wart, and the suggestion was made
that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency had insufficient information.
As part of this discussion, the concept of independent
bodies to assist in the resolution of scientific differences of opinion between
countries was raised. Such a body might have been used, for example, in the
recent case involving the potato wart. Committee members were told that
countries must retain their right to protect themselves in the manner they see
fit, with dispute resolution mechanisms available should the parties disagree.
During the fact-finding trip, the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food announced that an agreement had been reached with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture that would result in improved access by P.E.I.
potatoes to U.S. markets. While Committee members were pleased about the
agreement, concerns remain about the need for timely resolution of these types
of irritants, which can be financially crippling for some farmers. We are
encouraged by the bilateral dialogue that appears to have occurred, but believe
that a permanent mechanism must be developed that could quickly resolve these
types of bilateral agricultural disputes. To that end, the Committee recommends
that:
The
Ministers of International Trade and Agriculture and Agri-Food explore with
their U.S.
counterparts the development of an expedited mechanism to resolve
bilateral agricultural trade disputes. In particular, this mechanism should be
used where the agricultural product in question is perishable or is of
significant economic importance to a particular region.
Politics must not be allowed to overtake science, and
non-tariff barriers that are not science-based must not be permitted to disrupt
trade. To ensure that future problems of this type are avoided, Canada and the
United States must retain their focus on sound science, and work together to
facilitate trade in agricultural products, particularly those of a perishable
nature.
As noted earlier, an important focus in the House of
Representatives Committee on Agriculture’s farm bill proposal was
conservation. In addition to discussion about this proposal, Committee members
were told about development rights and conservation easements. These mechanisms
exist, in part, due to concerns about the loss of farmland to urbanization,
although better stewardship of the land and the preservation of “open space”
are also considerations.
With development rights, farmers sell a right that the
land will always be used for agricultural purposes, rather than sold for urban
development. Similarly, with conservation easements, farmers receive
compensation in return for an agreement to retain the land in agriculture;
future generations and purchasers must abide by this agreement. Nevertheless,
easements may have an “escape clause” if the purpose of the easement can no
longer be fulfilled. For example, if water dries up or a farm becomes surrounded
by urbanization, the farmer may be able to purchase the restriction. Easements
may address farming practices, although that is not universally the case.
Finally, the Committee was told that the funding of
conservation efforts, including those contemplated by the House of
Representatives Committee on Agriculture’s farm bill proposal, shifts federal
support from commodities to conservation. Public support exists for conservation
efforts, especially those that will have long-term public benefit.
Committee members support conservation efforts within
Canada, and believe that these efforts are consistent with the principles of
land stewardship and multifunctionality. We also support Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada’s Agricultural Environmental Stewardship Initiative and, as noted
above, have recommended that an examination of multifunctionality occur. More
must be done, however, both to ensure the long-term health of the agriculture
and agri-food industry and to enable the industry to assist in meeting
Canada’s Kyoto commitments. For this reason, the Committee recommends that:
The
Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Environment consider the
applicability of development rights and conservation easements within Canada.
Moreover, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should extend the funding of
the Agricultural Environmental Stewardship Initiative.
The Committee believes that the funding direction
proposed by the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture
with respect to conservation is correct, and urges consideration of a
similar policy direction within Canada.
Rural America, like parts of rural Canada, is
suffering. Committee members were told that, with agriculture forming the core
of many rural economies, rural economic problems in the United States are likely
to worsen. It must be remembered, however, that agriculture is not the only
problem in rural America.
In the United States, as in Canada, health and
education are not within federal jurisdiction, which limits the extent and
nature of federal assistance for rural infrastructure. Some initiatives do exist
to assist rural communities, however, including federally-funded rural
development programs for high-speed and advanced telecommunications services.
Infrastructure deficiencies exist not only in the areas of education, health and
telecommunications, but also with respect to transportation and culture.
Committee members heard a range of proposed solutions
to the problems in rural America: regional development initiatives to create the
“critical mass” needed to sustain communities and make infrastructure
investments worthwhile; tax incentives for businesses that locate in rural
areas; and marketing natural resources and unique cultural opportunities as
tourist attractions.
The Committee is currently involved in a study of
agricultural rural communities in Canada, and was interested in the problems
being faced in – and the solutions being proposed for – rural America. We
were struck by the extent to which the problems appear to be the same in both
countries, and were particularly interested in whether the solutions proposed
for the United States have application to the Canadian context.
While the Committee recognizes and supports existing
initiatives within Canada designed to assist our rural communities – including
Industry Canada’s Community Access Program which is linking rural and remote
communities to the information highway and the various activities of the Rural
Secretariat – many are in crisis and more must be done to assist them. We hope
that dialogue with appropriate authorities in both countries will occur in order
that “best practices” and possible solutions can be shared for the benefit
of rural communities throughout North America. From this perspective, the
Committee recommends that:
The
Rural Secretariat in Canada meet with appropriate organizations in the United
States to plan a North American conference on the challenges and opportunities
faced in rural communities throughout North America. This conference should
begin an ongoing dialogue on these issues.
Some rural communities have success stories to share,
and these should be examined to determine the keys to success. Particular
examination should be undertaken of the extent to which value-added
opportunities that are related to agriculture are instrumental in maintaining
healthy rural communities.
Farmers in Canada and the United States are receiving a
relatively small portion of the total moneys spent by consumers on food.
Committee members were told that American farmers have less power than others in
the food chain, including truckers, bankers, input suppliers, wholesalers and
retailers. It was indicated, for example, that six grocery chains control a
significant share of the market worldwide, which gives them considerable
bargaining power.
As a result, there is some concern within the United
States about the degree of corporate concentration in industries that are linked
to the agriculture industry. Concerns are alleviated, to some extent, by the
existence of personnel within the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture who oversee merger and acquisition activities within
the agriculture industry.
The Committee was intrigued with the concept that
personnel might be focussed on the impact on the agriculture industry of certain
merger and acquisition activities. We have been concerned about corporate
concentration within Canada in some areas, including agricultural input
suppliers, transportation services and food retailing.
From
this perspectiveFor
this reason, the Committee recommends that:
The
Competition Bureau, prior to approving a merger or acquisition, be required to
undertake a thorough analysis of the impact of the change on the agriculture and
agri-food industry. This analysis should be reported to the agriculture
committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. The analysis and report
should be completed by Competition Bureau personnel who possess in-depth
agricultural expertise.
Corporate concentration remains a concern for many in
the agriculture and agri-food industry. While the benefits of concentration are
recognized, it must not be the case that farmers are harmed as a result of
merger and acquisition activity in industries that have an impact on the
agriculture and agri-food industry.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS AND
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Committee members were told of the high level of
cooperation between Canada and the United States on the issue of biotechnology
and genetically modified foods. It appears that Canada and the United States
share the same view of the potential of biotechnology, a view that is perhaps in
sharp contrast to the approach taken within the European Union. Within North
America, many view biotechnology as a tool that farmers must have, although
consumer acceptance remains a challenge. Both countries believe that decisions
in these areas must be based on science – rather than on emotion or politics
– and feel that countries must retain the right to protect their citizens in
the manner they see fit, with dispute resolution mechanisms available should
countries differ in their points of view.
Whereas there appears to be significant “fear”
among European Union consumers about genetically modified foods, there seems to
be only small “pockets” of concern in the United States. Most Americans have
confidence in their food safety system, and believe that the regulatory system
for genetically modified foods and biotechnology is working well. It is also
recognized that genetic alteration occurs naturally, as well as in the
laboratory. Nevertheless, since the 1990s greater attention has been paid to
consumers. The challenge for farmers and food processors is to find ways to give
consumers what they want in the way that they want it. Perceptions about
labelling, tolerances, testing and monitoring are important in assuring
acceptance, and it is felt that a better “connection” with consumers is
needed.
Labelling remains an important issue within the United
States, both for genetically modified foods and for meat, with periodic interest
in the United States for country-of-origin labelling. This latter labelling
issue has implications for Canada, as does the increase in the number of
bilateral sanitary and phytosanitary issues.
The Committee supports the need for science-based
decisions on biotechnology and genetically modified foods, and commends the
Canadian and U.S. governments for their concerted efforts. We believe that this
cooperation must not be compromised by scientific disagreements between us
regarding sanitary and phytosanitary issues, such as the Prince Edward Island
potato wart. As was proven in that case, we are capable of resolving the
situation; the challenge is to do so in a more timely manner. Therefore,
the Committee recommends that:
The
governments of Canada and the United States continue to work together in
international fora to promote the need for science-based decisions regarding biotechnology
and genetically modified foods.
The valuable cooperation that exists between the United States and Canada
in this regard has benefited farmers in both countries, and highlights the need
for us to work together whenever possible.
AREAS FOR BILATERAL COOPERATION
Canada and the United States have the largest trade
relationship in the world, which is to our mutual advantage. Although high
profile bilateral agricultural trade irritants do arise from time to time –
including wheat, potatoes and tomatoes – the relationship is relatively free
of conflict. Committee members were told that the recent disputes may be the
result of the Asian economic downturn, rather than any long-term enmity between
us. With the loss of some markets, there is greater competition among countries
– including between Canada and the United States – for limited markets. We
were told that dialogue – between the federal governments, state and
provincial governments, farmers themselves and legislators in both countries –
is needed, particularly before trade actions are filed or other adversarial
actions are taken.
Farmers in North America are under stress and share the
same problems of high input costs and low prices. The problems may be
particularly acute for American organizations that now have interests in both
countries. Some believe that one possible solution to the current problems in
North American agriculture may be stimulating the demand for agricultural
products in order that increased demand might result in higher commodity prices.
A higher level of demand might be stimulated through: the identification of
niche markets; enhanced use of biodiesel and ethanol; the use of agricultural
products in the production of pharmaceuticals and plastics; and greater
humanitarian assistance. These activities would, however, likely require funding
for research and pilot projects. Particular mention was made of the U.S. energy
policy’s focus on self-reliance through such renewable sources of energy as
ethanol, and the requirement in some states that a certain portion of the energy
used be ethanol.
The challenge is to find means for North American
farmers to increases
their revenue from the market. In addition to stimulating demand for
agricultural products, such other options as valued-
added opportunities, industrial feed stocks and an enhanced role
for farmers in the food chain must be explored.
Finally, one of the most important areas of bilateral
cooperation is international trade agreements. Many see the launch of a
comprehensive round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations as critical
to the elimination of market-distorting European Union agricultural subsidies.
Moreover, a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement could add $1.5
billion annually to U.S. exports. Since the United States has more capacity than
is needed for self-sufficiency, trade and market access are critically important
to the survival of it's agriculture and agri-food industry. Trade promotion authority for President Bush
is often viewed as a needed tool to bring about international trade rules that
will allow greater returns from the market.
President Bush and Secretary of Agriculture Veneman are
free traders, and the Committee believes that they are important Canadian allies
as WTO and FTAA negotiations continue. In many ways, Canada and the United
States share the same vision regarding the long-term benefits of international
trade, and should continue to work together for the benefit of North American
citizens, including farmers. From this perspective, the Committee recommends
that:
The
governments of Canada and the United States take a leadership role in
international trade negotiations, including the World Trade Organization and
Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations currently underway.
Canada and the United States share a bond: a thriving
trade relationship and a close friendship. Our relationship must be nurtured,
and we must work closely together on those issues in which we have a “common
cause.”
During the Committee’s fact-finding trip to
Washington, several conclusions were reached. In addition to the points made
above, the
Committee was we
were struck by the extent to which the agriculture community within
the United States appears to speak with one voice. Although not all American
farmers and agricultural lobbyists share precisely the same view on all issues,
we believe that they are able to effectively deliver their message to
legislators, bureaucrats and citizens because they appear to share a common
voice. This situation is, in our mind, ina
sharp contrast to that which exists within Canada, where it seems that new
agricultural groups are constantly developing and the message is sometimes not
consistent. The Committee believes that farmers and agricultural lobbyists in
Canada must make greater efforts to develop a common voice. We believe that
greater success will be achieved if the agriculture community is able to speak
with one voice.
Secondly, Committee members were impressed with the
focus that appears to be placed on conservation in the United States. While in
Canada there is some focus on conservation and stewardship issues, greater
support should exist for alternative fuels, and land, water and air stewardship.
Such a focus would have many benefits: farmers would be able to add value to
their product and thereby benefit from greater income and employment
opportunities; urban Canadians would benefit from clean air and water as well as
the beauty of the countryside; and the federal government would benefit from the
assistance of the industry in meeting Canada’s Kyoto commitments.
Finally, the foremost – and unfortunate –
conclusion reached by the Committee is that farmers throughout North America,
regardless of sector or region, are in difficulty, resulting from low commodity
prices, high input costs, unpredictable weather and/or a lack of infrastructure.
It is, in part, for this reason that agricultural support has been substantial
– and will remain so – for the foreseeable future in the United States.
Within Canada, it is not feasible for the federal and provincial governments to
fund the agriculture and agri-food industry to the same extent as is the case in
the United States. Instead, prosperity in the Canadian agriculture and agri-food
industry should be pursued through such means as the identification of
value-added opportunities and niche markets, a focus on conservation,
stewardship and multifunctionality, and the pursuit of international trade rules
that create a trade environment within which Canadian farmers – which are
highly efficient and produce a high-quality product – can prosper.
1.
Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada study the application of the concept of multifunctionality
to Canadian agriculture. Following this examination, a report should be made to
the agriculture committees of the Senate and the House of Commons regarding the
extent to which this concept can be implemented within Canada. This report
should be made no later than 30 April 2002. (p. 3)
2.
Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada explore the feasibility of formalized, periodic review of
agriculture and agri-food policy in a manner similar to that which is undertaken
in the United States with its farm bill process. (p. 3)
3.
The
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Ministers of
International Trade and Agriculture and Agri-Food, meet with the United States
Trade Representative and the Secretary of Agriculture at the earliest
opportunity to discuss a long-term resolution to American concerns about Canada-U.S.
grain trade. (p. 4)
4.
The
Ministers of International Trade and Agriculture and Agri-Food explore with
their U.S. counterparts the development of an expedited mechanism to resolve
bilateral agricultural trade disputes. In particular, this mechanism should be
used where the agricultural product in question is perishable or is of
significant economic importance to a particular region. (p. 5)
5.
The
Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Environment consider the
applicability of development rights and conservation easements within Canada.
Moreover, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should extend the funding of
the Agricultural Environmental Stewardship Initiative. (p. 6)
6.
The
Rural Secretariat in Canada meet with appropriate organizations in the United
States to plan a North American conference on the challenges and opportunities
faced in rural communities throughout North America. This conference should
begin an ongoing dialogue on these issues. (p. 8)
7.
The
Competition Bureau, prior to approving a merger or acquisition, be required to
undertake a thorough analysis of the impact of the change on the agriculture and
agri-food industry. This analysis should be reported to the agriculture
committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. The analysis and report
should be completed by Competition Bureau personnel who possess in-depth
agricultural expertise. (p. 8)
8.
The
governments of Canada and the United States continue to work together in
international fora to promote the need for science-based decisions regarding
biotechnology and genetically modified foods. (p. 10)
9. The governments of Canada and the United States take a leadership role in international trade negotiations, including the World Trade Organization and Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations currently underway. (p. 11)
WITNESSES MET DURING THE COMMITTEE`’S
WASHINGTON FACT-FINDING
TRIP AND MAIN TOPICS OF DISCUSSION
American Farm Bureau (AFB): discussed membership, funding sources, views on
European Union subsidies and the House of Representatives Committee on
Agriculture’s farm bill proposal, farm income and support levels, input costs,
corporate concentration, bilateral trade in dairy products, rural decline,
genetically modified foods, conservation and development rights.
Staff of the House of Representatives Committee on
Agriculture: discussed the main
elements and direction of the farm bill proposal of the House of Representatives
Committee on Agriculture, rural depopulation, land prices, genetically modified
foods, organic farming, country-of-origin labelling, and the success of
value-added producers.
International Trade Commission (ITC): discussed the operation, budget and staffing of the
Commission, select bilateral trade irritants, and the need for ongoing dialogue.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA): discussed
country-of-origin labelling, bilateral cattle trade, antibiotics, the European
Union ban on hormone-treated beef, mad cow disease, cattle rustling, market
growth, conservation, beef processing and the Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point system.
National Farmer’s Union (NFU): discussed the organizational
structure of the group, a cost of production approach to support, enhancing
demand for agricultural products, humanitarian assistance, the school lunch
program, ethanol and biodiesel, the nature and level of European Union and U.S.
support for farmers, and corporate concentration.
Official from the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR):
discussed the mandate of the Office of the United States Trade Representative,
the magnitude and positive nature of our bilateral trade relationship,
international trade negotiations, genetically modified foods, select
agricultural trade irritants and differences in our agricultural systems in
terms of organization, as well as type and level of government support.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): discussed international trade negotiations, European
Union subsidies, the level and type of support for U.S. farmers, genetically
modified foods and consumer acceptance, and select bilateral trade irritants.
Congressional Rural Caucus: discussed the structure and membership of the Caucus,
the problems in rural communities in America, deficiencies in rural
infrastructure, the type and level of support for American farmers, and proposed
solutions to the decline in rural America.
National Association of Wheat Growers
(NAWG): discussed international trade negotiations,
“connecting” with consumers, agricultural research, land prices, organic
farming, biotechnology and genetically modified foods, and the House of
Representatives Committee on Agriculture’s farm bill
proposal.
American Farmland Trust (AFT): discussed the funding, operation and evolution of the
organization, conservation easements, and the House of Representatives Committee
on Agriculture’s
farm bill
proposal.
[1] The farm bill proposal was
debated in the House of Representatives in October 2001, and passed on 5
October by a vote of 291 to 120. For further information on the farm bill
proposal or the House of Representatives Committee
on Agriculture hearings, please see http://agriculture.house.gov/farmbill.htm.
[2] On 15 November 2001, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee reported its version of a new farm bill.