Agriculture Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Before handing over to Ms. Bonsant, I just want to go back to a statement that you made, Minister, to the effect that Quebec's agriculture minister, Laurent Lessard, was very, very happy with the budget.

I have to tell you that, in La Terre de chez nous, on Thursday, February 5, Mr. Lessard was reported as saying he would have liked to invest his share of the new AgriFlex program in agricultural income stabilization insurance, which your AgriFlex program does not allow. It excludes risk management. So, although Mr. Lessard told you he was happy, he also said publicly, in a newspaper, that he would have liked the money to be used for agricultural income support measures.

So don't come and tell me, and don't come and tell Quebec agricultural producers, that you delivered the goods on this program. It's not really a flexible program; it's missing a part, risk management.

The other minor thing I would like you to tell us is how you came up with regulations for the Product of Canada claim, which sets the percentage of Canadian ingredients at 98%, whereas, here in committee, we worked on this matter for a number of weeks and reached a consensus, or at least a majority agreement, demanding that that percentage be 85%.

However, you came up with a percentage of 98%. You are aware that, in the case of a jar of jam in which the fruit is 100% Canadian or Québécois, but which also contains slightly more than 2% sugar, which is often the case, the label “Product of Canada” cannot be used.

I wonder what you were thinking, apart from the fact that you may be trying to please the United States, which wants to introduce the COOL standard. I haven't yet understood how you could have arrived at that situation, in which it is impossible for agricultural producers and processors to put a product on shelves labelled “Product of Canada”.

Ms. Bonsant also wants to add something.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Good afternoon, Minister. You've been talking about 260 inspectors for some time now. I'd like you to table with the committee a list of the new inspectors you have hired because, according to the unions, there aren't that many, whereas you say there are a lot.

This is important for product traceability in Quebec. We know where beef goes. What is hard to determine is the origin of meat that comes from outside Quebec and Canada, from New Zealand or the United States, for example.

Do they have the same inspectors? Do they have the same standards for their animals as those in effect in Quebec and Canada?

It would be important to know whether inspectors in the United States or other countries from which we receive meat are as good as those in Canada, because once products from New Zealand and Quebec are mixed together, that becomes an issue. So I would like to have a list of those inspectors.

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

Sure. In response to Mr. Lessard's quote in the paper, there are many ways to build farm income other than through the business risk programs. I think that's what he was alluding to, because that's certainly what we talked about yesterday. Forward thinking, rather than being reactive with business risk programming, and topping that up--building a better mousetrap, basically--that's what we're looking to do with AgriFlex. I think we're on the right track, as do most producers.

Risk management is always a concern when it comes to agriculture. We are at the whims of the weather, and in some cases the marketplace. We're trying to build suites to level those peaks and valleys out. We always look at a risk assessment when we bring a program forward.

When we talk about product of Canada, certainly I read the report of the committee, which was not unanimous. We got hundreds, if not thousands, of hits on websites from Canadian consumers and processors. We worked with the processors of Canada, talking to them about the 98%. It is a voluntary program, and when I look at some of the products you're talking about, Mr. Bellavance, they're already labelled “Product of Quebec” and they can continue to be called product of Quebec. If they want to go out on the international scale and change to a “Product of Canada” labelling, there is sugar available in Canada that they can purchase. They can also use distilled down maple syrup. They'd have to change their recipe somewhat, but I'm told that's available to them as well. There are ways around that.

Certainly I take the work of the committee seriously, but it is the same as a lot of programs. I get advice to the minister. At the end of the day it's not the law, it's something we throw into the mix and make work.

When it comes to beef imports, Madame Bonsant, we do an overview of anything that comes in. We look at the equivalency of those inspections. Certainly we have international agreements, both WTO and NAFTA, where we export beef to certain countries and they have the right to reciprocate and we import beef from them. There is a cap on what we bring in, either under the NAFTA label or WTO label. We have not gone beyond that cap since BSE. We have not allowed what's called the supplementary estimates to bring in more beef. We've had applications at certain times, people looking for certain cuts, but we have not done that. Those inspections continue to be done as that product enters Canada to make sure that it is equivalent. We continue to do that and look forward to doing more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, your time is up.

Mr. Minister, it is 12 o'clock, and Mr. Anderson and Mr. Valeriote have indicated that they have some questions. I don't want to put you on the spot, but if you have time, I'm at your....

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

I'd love to do it, Larry. If they write them down, I'll be sure to get an answer to them, but I do have another meeting at 12, unfortunately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Very good, and I respect that.

With that, Mr. Minister, thank you very much for being here today. I hope that a number of questions were answered. I think everyone knows that if they have further—

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

I'm sure that everyone at this point understands the supplementary estimates B.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Also, to Mr. Corriveau, Ms. Baltacioglu, Ms. Swan, and Mr. Baker, thank you very much as well.

We are going to have to break for just a couple of minutes while some other witnesses come to the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Could we have everyone take their chairs again. I know that everyone has other meetings to go to at one o'clock, so the sooner we get going, the more questions we can have answered here.

To our new guests at the table, I'm not going to introduce every one of you. I think your name tags are up there. Thank you very much for being here, and I look forward to your answers for our members.

I'll turn it back over to Mr. Valeriote, or Mr. Easter.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is my maiden question, my first committee, and I thank you for the opportunity to be before you.

I want to thank the people from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for appearing.

This question was originally going to be directed to the minister, and I apologize for having to spray you with the venom that might be part of this question. It was really directed to him; nevertheless, I'm going to ask the question.

I'm discouraged by his dissing of the former government in suggesting there was not a commitment to research when in fact there was. He used the words “proactive approach” for his policy, as if to lend authenticity to his program. My question on that is therefore a follow-up to Mr. Shipley's question on research and Mr. Hoback's question on research.

The University of Guelph is Canada's foremost research university and they are doing research in biotech, in agritech. They're turning non-food agricultural products into industrial-like materials, like bioplastics, which is an opportunity for the agricultural industry to not just feed cities, but also to feed industry. The minister, as he was speaking earlier, dismissed that, really, as not being things people might be wanting. I think he is not looking outside the box.

Many researchers at the university have written me or called me in the last several days, telling me that they are now considering moving to the United States. The reason is that President Obama gave a clear commitment to research. Well, there is no clear statement supporting research by this government. You may not have it in front of you, but I direct you to page 270 of the budget, where $17 million is being cut from research this year, $43 million in 2010-2011, and $87 million in 2011-2012, which are being redirected. That is a concern. It is a concern to the professors and researchers at the University of Guelph and researchers across Canada.

My question is, why is this government abandoning research and cutting much-needed funding when research is the lifeblood of the future of the agricultural industry?

[Dr. Marc Fortin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Research Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you.

In 2006 AAFC published a science and innovation strategy, which outlines seven scientific priorities. That document is available publicly; it's on the web. In that document, we indicate our belief in investing in science and innovation, which will serve, of course, producers; that is, conventional agricultural production. We also indicate in that document that one of our priorities is the development of new bio-products and bio-processes. By that I mean products that are derived from agricultural biomass or agricultural primary production that can then be used for non-food purposes.

As part of the Growing Forward discussions that we're currently having with provinces, we are envisioning a series of initiatives where we would work with industry and academic institutions across Canada to bring the best brains together to develop new products, new processes, and new plant varieties that would benefit the agriculture and agrifood sector. Of course, the negotiations with the provinces are not finished at this point, but we do have this proposal on the table for further investment in science and innovation under Growing Forward.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I still need an answer to the question. Why is money being cut from research, from NSERC and CFIA? Why is money being cut? Why is this government not putting the money where its mouth is?

[Dr. Marc Fortin]

NSERC reports to the Minister of Industry. So does the NRC. So that question would be appropriate for those departments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have two minutes left.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I do have another question, and I'm hoping you can answer this.

This government is working on a free trade agreement with the European Union. For the record, could you answer to what extent, if at all, any of the provisions of the agreement threaten or undermine Canada's right to maintain its current system of supply management or the Canadian Wheat Board?

[Krista Mountjoy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you for the question.

With respect to the status of the initiative between Canada and the EU, the discussions are at an exploratory stage at this point. Officials are talking in an exploratory stage; we're not yet at the point of actual negotiation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Valeriote, you have a minute and ten seconds.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

When you talk about exploratory stage, do you know to what extent any of those issues are on the table?

[Krista Mountjoy]

In terms of the exploratory talks between officials, it's premature at this point to indicate specifically what issues might come on the table.

I think the significance of having exploratory talks really points to the commercial relationship and its tremendous potential between Canada and the European Union. The EU is Canada's second most important partner for trade and investment. Obviously we're looking upon these exploratory talks with optimism and the expectation that we'll be able to move to the next stage of negotiations and the possible outcomes and initiatives, such as the one you've mentioned.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

During the 2008 fall election, this government promised a drop of two cents a litre in the price of diesel gas. That's of particular importance to farmers. I don't see it in the budget. Can you tell me why this government has broken that promise?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Valeriote, it's fair to say they can answer what's in the actual estimates; I don't think they can answer that kind of question. But again, I'll check--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Silence is golden on that one, anyway, Mr. Chair. Silence is golden.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Does anyone care to comment on the question from Mr. Valeriote? We just have a few seconds.

No? Okay.

Mr. Bellavance, we'll move to you, for seven minutes.