Evidence of meeting #27 for Public Accounts in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was producers.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael Ferguson  Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Tina Namiesniowski  Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Joann Garbig
Rosser Lloyd  Director General, Business Risk Management Program Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

4:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Merci beaucoup. C'est tout.

Thank you.

We go over to Mr. Aspin.

You have the floor.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to our committee.

I have a couple of questions to the agricultural officials.

We're given to believe that this AgriRecovery program is a federal/provincial/territorial business risk management tool under Growing Forward 2. We're told it's a cost-shared—I believe it's 60:40—disaster relief framework intended to help agricultural producers recover from such natural disasters as flooding, drought, or disease, obviously to help producers in their plight.

Basically, so that I can get some feel for this, perhaps you can give me some examples of how, when, and where AgriRecovery has been successful in helping producers recover from these natural disasters.

Perhaps Mr. Lloyd can respond.

4:10 p.m.

Director General, Business Risk Management Program Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Rosser Lloyd

Sure.

Three categories have been already cast there. I would say we've had success in each one of those situations.

The two that come to mind are the initiatives with respect to the 2010 and 2011 flooding situations that we had in western Canada, when we had an unprecedented inundation of water in those provinces. We quickly went in and delivered assistance to help the producers in preparing the land for the next round, making sure that action was taken such that they were ready to plant a crop in the next crop year.

Having said that, we also end up in situations of drought. Often, as I say, drought equates to livestock and feed shortage issues. What we tend to do in those situations is offer the transportation types of program: helping the producer with the extra cost of getting feed from the areas that have it into those areas. They tend to be for a longer period of time, but the actions can be taken. The time needs to unfold so that the producer can take the actions necessary to bring the feed in and make the application and have the payment.

There are other examples, such as a tornado in Ontario whereby fruit trees were ripped out. We provided assistance for the producer once we recognized what the damage to those trees was. Some trees looked damaged, but it wasn't until the next year that one could really understood whether a tree was actually dead and was not going to be able to produce. In those situations, we assisted the producer with the costs of putting a new tree in the ground and with some of the maintenance costs to get it up and running.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Who triggers the application for the fund? Is it the producers themselves, under certain guidelines or criteria?

4:10 p.m.

Director General, Business Risk Management Program Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Rosser Lloyd

No, it's the provinces that generally it. We have a framework whereby either jurisdiction can trigger the framework; however, in most cases it's the provinces that do so. They tend to be closer, on the ground with the producers, so it tends to be the provinces that come forth with the request. In most cases, both jurisdictions are aware of the situation and are keeping an eye on it.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Okay.

What particular role does the federal government have, other than writing the cheque?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Tina Namiesniowski

I was going to say that the federal government has a fairly significant role in negotiating the framework with provinces and territories concerning the principles and criteria used in the context of AgriRecovery. As I said previously, it's a shared program, and there is agreement around the principles and basic criteria and the assessment process itself.

The assessment process is very much a shared assessment process, so while a province may trigger a request, the federal government and the province work quite closely in assessing the actual situation and identifying what if anything might need to be done in the context of the AgriRecovery framework. There is a set of principles that are reviewed in the context of that assessment, and both sides come to an agreement as to whether the situation is such that it warrants some level of initiative under the framework.

Both levels of government have to agree, because there are typically costs associated with the implementation of the initiative, and they are typically incremental to any existing budgets that departments might have. In both jurisdictions, you're having governments agree that yes, this is a situation that warrants the application of the framework and that yes, this is an initiative that should be pursued and funded.

So there is very much a role for the federal government in that respect. There is a similar role for an implicated province or territory as well.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Thank you. Time has expired. Thank you both.

Moving along, Ms. Jones, you have the floor, ma'am.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our guests today.

First of all, looking at the report and a recommendation of ten-and-a-half months to assess and process an application, I know, from my own experience representing people who work not only in this sector but also in other sectors that are quite often hampered by disasters that nobody can control, that the timeframe itself would seem very inadequate for those operators' being able to get their agriculture business back on track for another year.

So the timeline really concerns me. Notwithstanding the amount of delay that we have already seen within the program, I still believe that better targets could be looked at by way of a timeframe. I would ask whether this is something the department will be undertaking, in addition to the other things that have already been recommended by the Auditor General.

4:15 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Tina Namiesniowski

In the context of moving forward with the implementation of the recommendations, as I attempted to indicate in my opening remarks, we are looking at the issue of timelines, and as I said before, because it's not something that falls exclusively within the purview of the federal government, we're doing so jointly with the provinces and territories.

As per the conversation today, one of the things that is part of those conversations is whether we need to look at those timelines relative to the type of situation that is presenting itself. Are there instances in which you can move more quickly, relative to others? As my colleague has attempted to answer, there are situations in which the assessment process will take longer.

That is the reality. We have to find a way to be responsive to the needs of the producers but at the same time come forward with a recommendation and an approach that actually will help in a given circumstance. In certain situations, it would be difficult to do so in a quick way. So we're constantly looking for a way to balance all of those considerations.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL

Obviously, we've seen that some of these can be done much more quickly, as was indicated in the report. It's been done with a lot of the larger projects, as opposed to the smaller projects. But before I get to that, you really have to stress the fact that if a farmer in this country has any kind of a disaster, asking them to wait almost a year before there is any effective monetary response to that could, in essence, drive many of these families into bankruptcy. It could have tremendous implications for their ability to continue in the business in any fashion. I think it's a very important issue to look at.

As for the reporting that the department has been more efficient in processing and executing larger project claims than smaller ones, we know that the bulk of the projects were smaller ones. Why is that? Is it because of pressure from the media? A lot of the larger disasters are out there in the media. People are talking about them and are more attentive to what's happening with them than they are to a lot of smaller projects. What's the reason that a lot of these bigger projects would get pushed through the system and out the door much more quickly than the little guy who's waiting for disaster relief?

4:15 p.m.

Director General, Business Risk Management Program Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Rosser Lloyd

There are a couple of points.

First off, I think we need to understand that the nine months isn't when the first payment goes out. That's when 75% of the payments were made. The other point I should make is that AgriRecovery is not our first line of defence; in fact, it's our last line of defence. In there would be AgriStability interims and AgriInsurance payments in a lot of your drought and flood situations. Moreover, AgriInvest accounts are getting a fair bit of money in there where they can get access to cash as well.

Why does it take longer on a smaller than a bigger one? I'm not too sure it's the fact of size when we're looking at those flood payments. It was clear, based on the magnitude of that flood, that this land was not coming back that year. Those producers were out of production that year, for sure, and they also had to provide us some information with respect to making the payments through AgriInsurance.There was no need for an application process in those situations; we already had the data from another source. In effect, we knew there was a disaster, we knew it wasn't coming back, and we had a quick source of where to get the information to make the payments. That's what facilitated those fast payments.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

That is the end of time on your rotation. Thank you.

Moving over now to Mr. Falk, you have the floor, sir.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, panellists, for coming here this morning. I quite enjoyed reading this report.

Mr. Lloyd, I'll just start with a question. Would you call the AgriRecovery program similar to the position of a goalie in a hockey game? That would be the last line of defence, seeing that we're in this Montreal Canadiens season. Would that be an appropriate analogy?

4:20 p.m.

Director General, Business Risk Management Program Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Rosser Lloyd

Yes. I'll go with that analogy.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

All right. Good.

I find it quite interesting when reading the report that the department is being held accountable for the performance not only of itself, but also of the provinces as they participate together with you in this program. Yet, in the Auditor General's opening statements, and I believe in yours as well, the comment was made that there was no audit done of the performance of the provinces that were involved in any of this AgriRecovery program.

But I do find several statements in the report interesting. In paragraph 8.31 it says, to quote from your department:

...it is reasonable to assume that all producers that received assistance found it helped their recovery.

Also, two paragraphs later, there's a similar comment, which comes as a result of the audit team's survey:

Our overall survey response indicated general satisfaction with the amount of financial assistance received through AgriRecovery....

Further on in the report, the Office of the Auditor General indicates that the department does not have appropriate performance measurements, and yet two paragraphs later I see that there are actually performance measurements that the department has. Those performance measurements, which are your current ones, I believe, are whether producers find the program helpful, whether producers stay in business after a disaster, and whether producers get assistance when they apply.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Could you comment further and explain how the department has been able to measure the success of the AgriRecovery program?

4:20 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Tina Namiesniowski

Perhaps I can start and then turn it over to my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, the comment that was just raised is absolutely correct: we do have performance indicators that are linked directly to the AgriRecovery program, and those include the percentage of effective producers who apply for assistance once a disaster is designated. We have a target that 80% of producers expected to have been impacted directly by the disaster would have applied.

For the percentage of producers who believe that the financial assistance provided under the program played a role in the recovery, our target is that 75% of the producers surveyed would have indicated that in participating in the program.

We also have an indicator around response time to process applications from eligible producers in the affected areas. The target is that 90% of disaster situations be evaluated, as you well know, in this 45-day period and that 75% of the applications be processed within the nine months, which has really been the focus of our conversation today.

Then there is the percentage of producers still farming one year after the disaster payment. In that respect, the measurement target is that 70% of producers surveyed are still farming one year after the disaster payment.

This is a framework that we apply in the context of the AgriRecovery framework, and it's a significant tool that we use in terms of measuring the success of the program. But that said, we are working with our provinces and territorial colleagues to look at performance measures and to make sure that they are indeed relevant for the AgriRecovery framework and that we are applying them consistently across the board.

Rosser, do you want to add to that?

4:20 p.m.

Director General, Business Risk Management Program Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Rosser Lloyd

That's our formal performance measurement framework. Obviously we have many interactions with producer organizations, particularly when we went into consultations for Growing Forward 2. When we were doing that process, we heard a lot of support for AgriRecovery and for the fact that it is attempting to put some consistency and some predictability to when governments come in to respond to disaster situations.

So we have both the formal process that was just described and the informal processes as well.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Okay.

Based on the measurements you described your department as having, were you successful in achieving the performance you desired?

4:25 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Tina Namiesniowski

In terms of the measurement around timeliness, I think that, as was indicated by the audit report, there is room to improve. But in terms of timeliness, we're pleased to see that the Auditor General referred to our meeting our timeliness targets two-thirds of the time.

Can we do better? I think probably every government official will tell you that we're constantly striving to do better in relation to every single program we administer. That is consistently an objective that we all have. In that context we are definitely committed to implementing the recommendations, in line with what we have provided in our management response.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Okay. The time has expired. Thank you both.

We are moving back to Mr. Allen now.

You now have the floor again, sir.

May 14th, 2014 / 4:25 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank my colleague across the way for the hockey analogy about the goaltender. The dilemma is, Mr. Lloyd, that with your timeliness you actually missed the first period and you had an empty net. You actually started at the second period. I hope the other team is not really good at shooting the puck, or there would be a lot of goals scored before you showed up.

I say this with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, because we're actually talking about farmers who are waiting for money. It's not about pucks in the net; it's about whether I can sustain myself, and in some cases whether my farm goes bankrupt. That's what we're talking about. That's the important aspect of this, the timeliness.

This brings me back to the piece you talked about, such things as fruit trees and drought. You're right; if there's a lake on a section in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, it's a lake. If it's June, we're not planting; it's that simple. I've been out there enough and know farmers well enough—I know my friend Mr. Falk knows the area well—that if that section is a lake in June, you're not seeding.

So you're right; that is easy. Drought is more difficult for sure.

Let me use the example of last year, because you used tree fruit. I'm not talking about plum pox now. Now I'm talking about apples that bloomed, with burn-off because of a frost, that don't have apples on the tree in June. There will not be any apples in August if there are no apples in June, because when the blossoms burn off, it's exactly the same as having a lake on my section in Saskatchewan or Manitoba. There are no second blossoms on an apple tree during the season.

Yet last year we waited until, I believe, almost August before we started to figure out whether there were any apples or whether there was a disaster or not in the province of Ontario, even though we knew that 80% of the apples were gone, never mind 100% of the cherries.

You're right about how we should maybe adjust things, to look at things and how we get in. The other aspect—and you mentioned it, Mr. Lloyd—is that you have responsibility to intervene as the federal government as well, not waiting for the province.

How many times, to your knowledge, has the federal government initiated an agri-recovery program in the last two years before the province did?

4:25 p.m.

Director General, Business Risk Management Program Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Rosser Lloyd

Concerning the apple trees, you recognize that we did not do an agri-recovery initiative.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

No, I know.