Evidence of meeting #62 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Suzanne Vinet  Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
François Guimont  President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Andrew Marsland  Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Nada Semaan  Assistant Deputy Minister, Farm Financial Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
André Gravel  Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you. That's a good question.

I think if there's one thing that excites farmers across the country, it is this possibility that they see in the biofuels industry. There is, of course, big excitement among canola producers on the biodiesel side. There are corn producers on the ethanol side. There are wheat producers and an increasing amount of interest in the whole potential for cellulosic ethanol production across the country.

Everywhere I go, I think people understand that there is the possibility of having a domestic made-in-Canada ethanol and biodiesel system. In other words, we would not just be importing cheap imports, but would actually have a domestic made-in-Canada industry. Also, they see this very much as an opportunity for rural redevelopment, because these plants are going to be dotted across the country, and they'll tend to be, of course, where the supply is available, which is in rural country, farm country. The prospects of that excite farmers and obviously excite me as well.

We've announced several programs. One of them, the BOPI program--biofuels opportunities for producers initiative--which I mentioned, has been oversubscribed, so we added an extra $10 million to it so we can make sure every applicant gets consideration. This is to allow farmers to get in for business planning purposes and to do some site analysis or whatever they might need to do in order to develop a viable business plan. So we're giving money for that, and we had to increase that, because it's been a very popular program.

The second program we announced is about more than biofuels, but certainly it's part of the whole biomass innovation program, which is basically to give farmers, producers, and processors money to help them develop all kinds of opportunities from biofuels to biocomposities, bioplastics--you name it--anything that adds value to basic commodities. Under that program another $145 million would be available for farmers and processors to come together to find ways to move that forward. Again, I'm hopeful that's going to help us develop those new products.

We also have another program that's similar in size and that will help take those products from the idea stage to commercialization. What happens too often in Canada is that we get lots of good ideas that come up to a certain point and all of a sudden they stop, and they never get into commercialization.

What we want is for farmers to be able to say we have the idea, we developed the product, and everybody wants it. We get a patent and then there is no commercial value. So we have to get commercial value out of that. That's another $135 million program.

Then there's the eco-agriculture biofuels capital initiative. It's an equity program for farmers specifically for biofuels plants and the equity position in that. Under that program, if farmers have as little as 5% investment in a biofuels plant, that plant will get a per-litre subsidy, if you will, an incentive, as an equity position to develop the plant.

As the percentage of farmer involvement increases, the amount of per litre incentive also increases. So the more farmers you get involved--or if you can get a co-op involved in a biofuels plant--the more money there will be from the government to help them take an equity position in that plant.

We announced that last week. The Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, the Canola Council of Canada, and other folks who were at the meeting said they were very pleased with the way it was designed. It's going to allow farmers--and you have to be a farmer, that's the deal--to take equity positions in these biofuels projects.

Finally, of course, we have a $2 billion program that's for the biofuels industry generally, and that's split into two pieces. One is just a per litre incentive--20¢ for biodiesel, 10¢ for ethanol--to make plants that will produce competitively with the Americans, to help them get on their feet and to make a made-in-Canada biofuels industry. It's $1.5 billion.

The second part of it is $500 million that will go specifically for kind of the next generation of ethanol production, which the scientists tell us is likely going to be cellulosic. So wood fibre cellulose, switchgrass, straw, and other bio-products that used to be waste products can now be used for the production of ethanol and biodiesel.

We have a $500-million program, and that will go across the country again, not just for grain production but for all of these other types of production. A region of the country that's not into corn, for example, might want to grow sweet potatoes, switchgrass, or who knows what. This program is specifically to get them up and going. My hope is that eventually we'll transfer from a grain-based biofuels industry into more of a cellulosic one. Then we can use our grain for other more value-added products.

That's the list of programs to help make that industry viable.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

It is 4:30, and I know that you have other things on your agenda. We will suspend, allow you to depart, and let the rest of our witnesses come to the table as quickly as possible.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

We have a question for CFIA, and I see that nobody on the list is from CFIA. Can somebody stay?

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

We'll have them here on Thursday.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

But we have a person here who needs to ask a question today. Surely the president could stay for 15 minutes.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Is that possible, Mr. Guimont, to answer one question? We'll do that after we suspend.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We're suspended.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Gaudet.

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make one short comment. It find it inconceivable that the Minister meets with us so infrequently. If he is not able to set aside an hour and a half, so that each member of the committee can put questions to him, at least, there is a big problem. His presentation and his brief were very good. He might just as well have sent it to us, in French and English. He spoke for 25 minutes and I was not able to ask any questions. In future, Mr. Chair, if the Minister agrees to meet with us but we cannot all ask him questions, I would rather he stay home, as simple as that. Ordinarily, I am very conciliatory and I can adapt to a lot of different situations, but this afternoon, that was a little much. Thank you.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Monsieur Gaudet. Point taken.

We can make the request to call the minister back at a later time. We'll have to check to see if his schedule is available and make the request that he stay for the entire meeting the next time he appears, if that's the desire of the committee. I can appreciate that.

We're going to continue with our rounds. I don't think anybody has any opening comments. We're going to continue with the minister's comments as the opening comments.

Monsieur Gaudet, you're up for the Bloc Québécois.

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to ask you my questions. I note that you are all assistant deputy ministers, acting or otherwise. What is the vision for agriculture at present? My preamble will be quite simple. At National Defence, they make plans 10 years in advance. I have been in Ottawa for four and a half years, and there has never been any clear vision for agriculture. How can this be?

If I listen to the Minister, there are so many programs that they are coming out our ears, but not one is designed for farmers. What is your vision of agriculture, as there is for the environment or any other aspect of society? What is your vision? We have had problems like avian flu, BSE, droughts, floods and the golden nematode. These are obstacles.

How can it be that we are not able to do as the Americans do and give our farmers the same kind of subsidies that the Americans or the European Union give to their farmers? How can it be that we in Canada are not able to do the same? For four and a half years, I have been hearing the same song, sung by everyone I meet. Now I want an answer, if you are able to give me one, naturally.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Who wants to handle that question?

Madame Vinet.

4:40 p.m.

Suzanne Vinet Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously your question is very broad. The vision is reflected in the agricultural policy strategic framework that is now in place. We have initiated consultations with the sector so that we can update the strategic framework, and we are discussing the vision for agriculture. While we work to ensure development in agriculture, through our strategic framework, we are discussing this perspective with producers. The Minister clearly wants the next strategic framework to reflect a profit-oriented agricultural sector that enjoys the benefits of many innovations. It will have to include the kind of programs that will lead to production that benefits producers in the long term and meets the needs of society. The current strategic framework incorporates a range of programs, and that is what we are now working on for the next strategic framework.

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC

The reports we have received say that fiscal 2007-2008 will be a key year in that it will be devoted to developing the new agricultural policy and new programs. Implementation is scheduled for 2008. That is actually my question. Are you starting to prepare this for 2008, today? We are almost there, and you have nothing concrete. This seems to me to be a real problem. I am wondering whether agriculture really counts. This is our raw material, in Canada, and still it seems to be adrift. You have no programs. I am very dissatisfied and that is what I would have told the Minister if he had stayed. I hope that my comments will be taken back to him. I have nothing to add.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Does anybody want to follow up on that comment?

Thank you.

Mr. Devolin.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of questions.

Since the BSE crisis, everyone realizes that beef farmers were impacted and there was a program introduced to compensate beef farmers for some of their losses. But there are other producers, and I'm thinking in my own riding in central Ontario, dairy producers as well as sheep farmers, who were also side-swiped. They're in the business of exporting breeding stock out of Canada. I wonder what has been done, or if anything is being contemplated to be done, to compensate dairy farmers and sheep producers, who also lost millions of dollars as a consequence of BSE.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Does anybody want to respond?

May 1st, 2007 / 4:45 p.m.

François Guimont President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

I can take a stab at this.

First, before I speak, I should introduce Dr. Gravel, since this is a bit impromptu, and Krista Mountjoy, who is the vice-president of the programs at the CFIA.

On the issue of beef, cow, sheep, and compensation, the responsibility of the CFIA is when there is action to be taken and we need to depopulate, or we need to essentially put down animals as a result of a quarantine illness or something that fits the parameters of our regulation and legislation, compensation will be paid. So there's a schedule for that, and compensation is paid. So that's one point.

In terms of what I would call resuming market and movement of species—sheep, goats, cattle—as you know, there's a rule right now, so there's movement of cattle to the U.S. Hopefully, we're going to get a second rule, which will remove the limitations in terms of age, the cattle that can move down. More recently, over the last couple of months, we've been working at putting in place a regulatory regime between Canada and the U.S. that will facilitate movement of sheep and goats, as an example. So I'm not addressing the issue of compensation per se, but we're talking here about efforts that the CFIA and the minister have put forward in resuming better market access, both to the Americans, frankly, and Canada. These things are milling their way through the system.

Some regulatory authority is needed, and things of that nature, but we've been proactive at this, and frankly we've been doing this with the industry. The industry is aware of that and has been very supportive.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

So what I take from that is that there's nothing dealing with compensation for losses to date, but that there are some efforts being made, given that the markets are still closed, to open them up at some point in the future. Is that a fair comment?

4:45 p.m.

Andrew Marsland Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food

I think that is a fair comment.

In addition, there have been a couple of programs to assist both the ruminant sector other than the beef sector and the non-bovine sector, both in terms of sustaining the genetic quality of the herd and in market development. We can provide details of those as well, and in the past also, programs that have applied to the dairy sector as well as the beef sector in the suite of programs. So there has been some assistance provided, particularly in the market development side and on the genetics, preserving the genetic quality of the herd as well, while these industries face these problems.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

I have a quick question to do with the CAIS program.

It's my understanding that CAIS was introduced as a five-year program. If somebody unilaterally wanted out of it, it was a two-year clause and we're in the last two years of CAIS. It's my understanding that the provinces, and particularly my province of Ontario, wanted to maintain CAIS and were not agreeable to getting rid of CAIS and bringing in another program. I'm just wondering if that hurdle has been overcome and whether the federal government is getting cooperation from provincial governments to come up with a replacement for CAIS.

4:45 p.m.

Nada Semaan Assistant Deputy Minister, Farm Financial Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Actually, CAIS is part of the APF, but it is a statutory program, so you are correct that it would take any one of the parties two years. They would have to identify in advance that they want to remove themselves from it.

As to the federal–provincial ministers, when they first met in terms of talking about a replacement for CAIS, and as they consulted with industry, a number of industry members identified that they did want a margin-based program as a component of a new suite, but that wasn't enough.

So there has been a lot of progress with federal, provincial, and territorial ministers, especially in the last meeting, as the minister just mentioned, to replace CAIS with not one program, but a suite of four programs: the first one is a producer savings account for the top tier; then a new margin-based program, which pretty well covers a lot of new features to the margin base; then an enhanced production insurance program; and then a final area, which is the catastrophic disaster program to take care of other costs that the other three programs do not cover.

There's been a lot of progress. Right now we are working with the federal–provincial–territorial officials and we are going to present recommendations to ministers in June for the next APF.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

We'll go to Madam Bennett.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Thank you very much.

My question is for the department, but mostly for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The pet food problem seems to have woken a lot of us up. Now that you're before the committee, it would be appropriate to ask you to go over the kinds of regulations we have, whether it's for wheat gluten or any other imported additives to the ingredients in pet food and human food.

How do we make sure that what was intended for pets, if it happens to be eaten by humans or happens to feed the animals that feed humans, is regulated? How are you regulating that? To the same point, when people see things they think are made in Canada, how do they know the ingredients didn't come from somewhere else that has totally different regulations?

4:50 p.m.

President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

François Guimont

Thank you for the question.

I'll give you a bit of an overview as to how it works. I'll start with pet food, then I'll drill down to where we are. I think that's probably of interest to the committee in terms of this issue as you've expressed it. I'll use analogies instead of boring you with acts and regulations.

The CFIA has a responsibility for pet food as it relates to animal health. If we know that pet food can turn out to be an issue vis-à-vis cows, pigs, and things of that nature, there is a line of responsibility for the CFIA. That's the first thing.

Second, we have a responsibility, as well, for export certification of pet food. That's the reality, and it goes like this. Let's say that an importing country wants us, being Canada, to make sure that the pet food from Canada going into that country meets certain requirements. We will CFIA-certify it against those requirements. It's not unique to pet food. Certification of exports is done by the CFIA on a whole bunch of commodities. It can be beef and things of that nature.

We don't have what I call a regulatory framework for pet food for pets' sake, in the sense of the health of animals as pets--dogs, cats, reptiles, tortoises, or things of that nature. I'm not passing judgment on whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. The regulatory structure has not been there.

This is when we work with pet food: if there is a livestock issue; if there is a pet food certification purpose, for export; and if there is a human health component. That is when, and I stress this, a pet food issue in Canada can be connected to a human health issue. Take treats, for example. Treats, we know, from the work we have done, can be contaminated with salmonella. We know that the treat in question can be handled by a young person. If a kid, or even an adult, for that matter, touches the treat to be given to the dog or the cat, and there's a possibility that the person will touch his or her face afterwards, then we will act. We have the power and responsibility to act. We can recall.

If it's for the pet's sake, for a pet's health, we don't have a recall capacity. We don't have a regulatory capacity, and that's just the nature of where we are right now.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

If I'm reaching into the bag to get the dog food out and throwing it into the bowl, that doesn't count, but if it comes marked as a biscuit, it does.