Agriculture Committee on May 10th, 2007

[Marc Fortin]

That is a question you should put to Health Canada and to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Miller, you're up.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you.

I want to go back to continue on some of the previous questions. Mr. Easter touched on them--the retiring of a number of the staff, and what have you. What kind of program is in place as far as researchers are concerned? There must be some kind of program in there where you're bringing in new young people with new thoughts. What's the ratio of young researchers who come into the department on a yearly basis as far as a percentage number goes? Are there any numbers on that?

[Marc Fortin]

With the demographics that we have, we're replacing between 15 and 30 researchers, scientists, a year. As I said earlier, we're in the process of recruiting 17 scientists now. We're doing interviews, and so on.

We have to also keep in mind, as we're replacing scientists, where we see agriculture going, the priorities of the sector. Again, our consultations in 2005, which we ran across the country, were quite vocal at that level. Many people across the sector have their favourite person, their favourite scientist who needs to be replaced. We're looking at this still, and as I said, we launched today a process for replacing 17 of them.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay, it replaces. So this isn't 17 on top of the normal recruitment, it's just the ongoing, through attrition. Is that correct?

[Marc Fortin]

It's replacing the 15 to 30 or so who leave every year. The demographic is that we lose 15 or 30, depending on the year, and now we're replacing 17 of them. It's not necessarily the end of our recruitment effort this year, but I can tell you that this is what we're doing right now.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I will be staying on the recruitments, the new ones who come in. Do you find the ideas branching out as far as technology goes? As somebody who turned 50 not too long ago, sometimes the older you get, you're not as adaptable to change. Is it really recognizable, when you get these young people in who are full of pee and vinegar, as we say on the farm, that kind of thing? Is it beneficial--new ideas, new thoughts, what have you?

[Marc Fortin]

We have scientists who continue to be a very enthusiastic and keen crowd. They rarely retire before 65, which is a little different from what else is happening in the public service. Scientists are keen. They want to contribute. They're by and large a passionate crowd. The young scientists are no exception.

As I said earlier, in the ABIP, the agricultural bioproducts innovation program, we've received close to $1 billion worth of requests. They have lots of ideas, and they want to do new work and they want to move forward.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

An issue right now, and I think it tends to get some false information out in the public, is the terminator seed. Basically, testing is being done there. I'm not sure whether it was by people from your department, but it has been indicated to us that no matter what happens in research for the terminator gene, there are still going to be avenues out there for farmers to be able to keep their own seeds.

For example, in my part of the country, everybody purchases certified seed, barley, oats, that kind of thing. But a number also use a bunch of it.... They clean it for themselves and reuse it. Is that something that you see staying in place?

[Marc Fortin]

Forecasting the future is always risky, and I'd be speculating if I went too far there.

But referring to an earlier question, there is a market that is perhaps more diversified than it used to be. We have market segments that are focused more on organic, more on healthy food, more on various kinds of products. If we are to be successful, we have to continue to cater to these different markets.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller, your time has expired.

Mr. Steckle, you're batting cleanup.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Time isn't going to allow me to ask all of my questions, but I'm going to begin.

The matter was already touched on: who's driving the agenda?

A number of years ago, about ten years ago, in fact, rBST was at the top of the agenda for Monsanto, and perhaps other companies, but particularly Monsanto, for the dairy industry. To my best recollection, it wasn't the dairy industry—and we have the dairy people later this afternoon—that was driving the need for rBST but rather it was more the interest of Monsanto in profiteering in a drug product.

We talk about safe food. We talk about science that allows us to develop products. I guess the question is, are we developing new products? That's really where it should be at. Are we more interested in traits? But I guess the question would be, when we see what's happening in the pharmaceuticals, where we're creating products to aid and abet people's health but in fact we're really killing people.... And I know I can say that. You probably can't say that, but it's quite proven in many cases where people have ingested or have been given the wrong drugs. Just recently in the papers, in the last few days, a lady has been known to have died because she was given the wrong drugs. Most people today are using some form of drug and in many cases require another drug to overcome some of the harmful effects of the first drug.

We spend a lot of time and we spend a lot of money. Our health care costs are humongous because we've gone down that road. Yet on food safety, we are so careful. And we know that Canada has the safest food supply. How much of our scientific effort is being put into the area of creating safe food, when in fact that should not be where the impetus is? Rather, it should be on creating new products with traits, perhaps, where we develop and can develop niche markets. We've gone down that road, and I think there isn't anyone here who would doubt the safety of our food supply in this country.

[Marc Fortin]

To go back to your question about who's driving innovation, we're the drivers. We have producer organizations across the country that are very vocal and make their opinions known. We receive letters on a daily basis about what they see as priorities for their producers, their members. We take this into account. We take into account the consultations we've done, the consultations that are going on at the moment with the next generation of agricultural policy.

We also fund producer/processor organizations. I'm thinking of Soy 20/20, Flax 2015, and the Potato Innovation Network. These are organizations where producers are intimately involved. They're developing their own plan for their sector. We're funding this through the broker program at AAFC. We're providing the funds to help them to develop those plans that are driven by the base, by the farmers and the producers in collaboration with the processors.

These plans have not been designed by someone else. They are their plans. And we're helping them to develop those. We can help them, put our expertise at their service through the MII program, the matching investment initiative program that I was mentioning before. So they design their plan, and we're there to help them to develop technologies or develop new products.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

On the matter of replacement scientists and people, you're replacing 17 at the moment. I'm not sure where you're going in terms of further replacement, but you mentioned that you lose 25 or 35 people--I forget the number--each year. I just have to wonder if we have a pattern here of ultimately reducing the total number. Or how does that fit? We're only replacing half of what we're losing. Or did I misunderstand the context of the question?

[Marc Fortin]

We're not reducing. The budget of the research branch has remained more or less the same for a number of years, seven or eight years now, or eight or nine years. It has remained relatively stable. In addition, with the ABIP, the agricultural bioproducts innovation program, there are additional new investments announced by the minister.

Just to get the numbers right, through attrition--through retirements or voluntary departures--we're losing 15 to 30 or so a year, and we're in the process of replacing 17, as I said. We'll go back to the minister to see if we replace more down the road.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The point being made is that we're falling behind.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just before I suspend, I want to ask you to supply some extra information to the committee in writing.

As a farmer, I think there's no doubt that the biggest bang for our buck we've ever received from Agriculture Canada has been out of the research branch. The research program has made us who we are today. It's given us the genetics in our animal agriculture. It's given us the plant varieties to be successful as grain producers across Canada and in the international marketplace. So there's no question that this has been the greatest investment in the future of agriculture.

My concern has been that the focus in research has become more and more about secondary processing and more about food safety and environmental issues and is forgetting about that basic, primary agriculture at the farm gate.

So I'd like to see some numbers. What is the percentage of your activities and how many dollars are used in the area of primary producer research? You know, they are things like animal breeding, new plant varieties, animal health issues, and things of that nature. Then how much coming out of the research branch is for secondary processing? Then also, what are some of the long-term fundamental activities you're already starting to invest in, and how far out will that go?

If you can lay that out for us in writing and get that back to us as quickly as possible, I'd really appreciate that.

We do have to suspend, because we have witnesses coming up right after this.

Thank you very much for assisting us with our APF research.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're back in session, and we're going to continue on with the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. Welcome to Laurent Souligny, who is the chair; Peter Clarke, who is vice-chair; and Fred Krahn, executive committee member. I want to thank all of you for appearing. And also, thank you for breakfast yesterday. It was a very good event.

If you can keep your opening comments to less than ten minutes, that would be much appreciated.

[Laurent Souligny, Chair, Canadian Egg Marketing Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to start by thanking you and the committee for providing the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency with the opportunity to speak with you about the next generation of agriculture and agrifood policy.

The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency represents the egg farmers on 1,050 regulated farms. Our industry has producers in all provinces and in the Northwest Territories.

I will restrict my comments to the business risk management portion of the APF consultations, and talk primarily about managing two kinds of risk. One is market or price risk, and the other is risk due to a production challenge such as animal disease, weather, or feed problems.

When it comes to managing market or price risk, our producers believe our means of supply-managed marketing is in fact a business risk management program that needs to be recognized in the new APF. Supply management provides consumers with a stable supply of the kinds of products they need and want, while moderating producer prices.

Since 1972, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and our provincial counterparts have promoted high-quality eggs to Canadians, using supply management. It is widely recognized as a sustainable system and has received widespread support from our members of Parliament.

The next agriculture and agrifood policy should include all components of Canadian agriculture, including successful programs like supply management. Therefore, the policy needs to recognize and strengthen these successful programs, as well as play its more traditional role of finding new solutions to problems.

The consultative process for a new APF provides an excellent opportunity to recognize those programs that moderate farm incomes and increase the negotiating strength of farmers in the marketplace. In our view, supply management needs to be recognized in the new policy as a business risk management program because that is exactly what it is.

There has been a suggestion that supply management could be recognized as a tool in the new APF. To us, there is a significant difference between a tool and a program. Acknowledging supply management as a program recognizes that supply management actually provides to farmers a means by which to mitigate the risk of highly fluctuating prices in the marketplace.

You will note in your written brief that we have suggested wording that needs to be incorporated into the new policy. For the sake of time, I will not read that wording here, but the major thoughts captured are that the APF should integrate all components of Canadian agriculture; that supply management and the three pillars should be specifically named and recognized in the APF as a business risk management program; and that supply management needs to be defended in international agreements.

I would now like to turn my attention to the second kind of risk; that is, the production risk farmers face daily due to weather and disease threats. Our industry is no stranger to disease threats.

We've been instrumental in working with federal and provincial governments to prepare for possible events involving avian influenza. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and our colleagues in other poultry agencies have met several times with Canadian Food Inspection Agency officials and the Honourable Chuck Strahl regarding avian influenza preparedness.

The biggest single outstanding issue is the inadequacy of compensation available under the Health of Animals Act regulations when flocks are ordered destroyed. We disagree significantly on the ways to measure market value for layers. Interestingly, government has agreed that the compensation available under the Health of Animals Act does not cover off the true cost of disease outbreaks. But from here, we part ways.

Initially, we were told a year ago that government would look at phase two compensation for avian influenza outbreaks. We were told a program would be in place very soon. More recently, we have come to understand that phase two is essentially the review of the business risk management suite of programs. The process has been slow, and we do not see it gaining momentum any time soon.

We have specific comments regarding the current review of these programs. First, dealing with the new disaster framework, it is our understanding that there will be need for a federal-provincial negotiation whenever a payout is contemplated. Therefore, when disaster occurs, it is not at all certain that there will be adequate compensation in place, and it certainly won't be put in place quickly. In addition, we are uncertain of what constitutes a disaster under the framework.

CEMA believes that production insurance should be opened up to individual livestock producers and cover general declines in production without specific disease perils being named. We also want the door kept open for the possibility of having government-run production insurance to serve as a re-insurer for industry-led programs where specific disease perils are named.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is urgent that progress on these discussions move quickly. CFIA wants to move forward with avian influenza surveillance of domestic poultry flocks. However, producers are reluctant to participate, as they are uncertain of what will be provided to them if an avian influenza virus requiring flock depopulation is found. We believe surveillance is desirable, but it is difficult to support when we know egg farmers could be severely financially impacted. I know that our farmers would be much more comfortable proceeding with surveillance if we knew that the Health of Animals Act compensation would be adequate.

In summary, we recommend the following: the new agriculture and agrifood policy needs to explicitly recognize supply management as a business risk management program and needs to explicitly recognize the three pillars of supply management, which are producer pricing, import controls, and production discipline; an interim program should be established so the true costs of avian influenza disease outbreaks are compensated; production insurance should be opened up so it is available for livestock production and covers all perils; and the door should be left open to permit government-sponsored production insurance to serve as a re-insurer to industry peril-specific programs.

Thank you for your time and attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter, you're on. We're doing five-minute rounds.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thanks.

Thanks, folks, for coming in.

I think you gave some very specific proposals for how this should be included in a report and in the agricultural policy framework. It is specifically the three pillars of supply management that you want in--basically this wording--and not just the words “supply management”, as I understand it. Is that correct?

[Laurent Souligny]

Correct.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On the business of paying for the value of the birds that were destroyed, of which the government hasn't paid the value, did you say you were of the view—I guess you were told—that this would be happening and that it would be in place soon? When would that have been?

[Laurent Souligny]

We've been lobbying government to try to get the avian flu compensation under the Health of Animals Act.

If you recall, last year it was $33 a bird, and I think it still is, unless it's been changed recently. But the proposal that we have in front of us is for $8, which is totally inadequate for a bird, for a laying hen. We were told last year that the government would be looking at a risk management program that would cover the balance, if it were more than $8, for instance, and so far we haven't seen anything happening.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

This seems to be increasingly what we're getting from the new government: commitments that are made and not kept. We're seeing that with the farm options program, so I'm not surprised.

This committee, I believe—and I believe Paul was the chair—made recommendations to increase the funding for the greater value of the birds. How do you see putting that in the agricultural policy framework itself?

Laurent, do you see naming the Health of Animals Act? How do you do it?