Evidence of meeting #34 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was producers.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Andrew Marsland  Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Pierre Corriveau  Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Brian Evans  Executive Vice-President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Gordon White  Vice-President, Finance, Administration and Information Technology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Nada Semaan  Assistant Deputy Minister, Farm Financial Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I call this meeting to order.

I want to welcome to the table today Minister Gerry Ritz, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who is here to help us with our study on the main estimates, tabled some time ago. Joining him is Yaprak Baltacioglu, the deputy minister, and Pierre Corriveau, the assistant deputy minister. And from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Carole Swan and Gordon White.

Welcome, all of you, to the table.

We'll start it off, Mr. Minister, with your opening comments.

9:05 a.m.

Battlefords—Lloydminster Saskatchewan

Conservative

Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here. It's always a great opportunity to compare agricultural notes from across the country with members around the table here.

I'll focus my remarks today on the current environment, the actions taken to address that environment and, of course, the future.

As you folks know very well through your own observations and consultations, we're really seeing a paradigm shift in agriculture and agrifood. Rapid changes in market conditions and competitive pressures—

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Mr. Easter.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, do we have a copy of the minister's remarks?

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

You're supposed to listen, Wayne.

9:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

I do listen, but I do think that sometimes we get bafflegab from the minister; that's the problem. The fact of the matter is that we can go to the minutes, but it would be preferable to have the minister's remarks.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

It's not a point of order you're making, Mr. Easter.

Witnesses have the opportunity to provide comments in both official languages. It's also up to them if they don't want to circulate their opening remarks.

So let's just turn this back to the minister, so he can keep on with his opening comments.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

I'd be happy to give Mr. Easter a copy of these once I'm done. I don't have them in both official languages, so I couldn't table them, but I'd be happy to give Mr. Easter a copy, if he'd like, after I'm done--or I could give them to him and he could read them, if he'd like.

9:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

If you say something sensible, I might frame them!

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Okay, order.

May 15th, 2008 / 9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

I'd even autograph them for you, Wayne.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Order.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Let me restart here.

Of course we've seen rapid changes in market conditions, competitive pressures, price and input cost pressure squeezing the margins of several commodities, challenges and opportunities in international trade policies, increasing awareness and sensitivity of food safety issues, and increasingly environmentally aware consumers. These factors are all having an impact on how we respond to the challenges and opportunities facing our Canadian producers.

You know, one of the great things about this job is that it gives me a chance to sit down with farmers from coast to coast to coast, and I've been able to do that over the last short time. I can say we're getting some great comments from people that we're on the right track on some of these key issues. Things are getting done, and if you want to see it in black and white, you have the evidence right here in front of you in those main estimates. I think it goes right back to the fact that we have not wavered from the bedrock principle that we established from day one, and that is of course “farmers first”. If the farm gate is not strong and viable and sustainable, then none of the rest matters or can continue. It's a simple formula and it works. We're listening to farmers, we're acting on what we're hearing, and we're delivering real results.

The livestock sector told us it needed help to get through a rough patch, and we delivered. Changes to the advance payments program was by far the biggest ask by the sector, and we delivered in record time, thanks to the help of you in the opposition parties. Changes to the act made emergency cash advances of up to $400,000 per farm available for our livestock producers. Of that $400,000, the first $100,000 is interest-free. We also dealt with issues around security requirements to maintain the security for the banking sector. We took other actions to speed up cash flow to the industry, including fast AgriInvest payments, targeted advance payments, and the cull breeding swine program, which has already met more than half the target.

Farmers asked us to get older cattle moving south again, and we have done that, Mr. Chair, first through rule 2. Then when we were in Washington in March we got the good news that Mexico would provide OIE-consistent access to all breeding cattle—we've seen the first shipments move south—and further, that Canadian breeding cattle could be shipped through the U.S. to Mexico. It's working out very well.

I'm proud of how this government has delivered, ensuring greater market access for Canadian beef. I'm proud of the professional manner in which the agriculture and agri-food department and CFIA are working together and getting things done for our producers. We're getting great comments back.

Last November, the CFIA worked with our livestock industry to head off the enhanced testing for E. coli that was demanded by the United States. We got that turned around. We're making gains for livestock farmers in the red meat sector, but we won't stop there. We need to restore full access to all cattle and beef with all our trading partners.

We will continue to vigorously oppose the current version of mandatory country-of-origin labelling. Of course, that's expedited with the passage of the Farm Bill yesterday. I've raised that issue on several occasions with Secretary of Agriculture Schafer and also his predecessor. The U.S. has to make sure COOL doesn't choke the industry on both sides of the border with unnecessary segregation costs and stacks of mandatory paperwork that serve only to thicken the border, and of course that thickens it both ways. The version of COOL that is implemented must be trade-compliant under NAFTA, or as we have advised the U.S. and have continued to say, we will initiate a NAFTA panel.

Farmers told us they wanted more opportunities in the biofuel sector, and we will deliver that through Bill C-33 amendments, ecoABC, and other initiatives. Our approach to biofuels is thoughtful and reasonable—I'm sure we'll have that discussion here today—balancing the need to ensure we address the needs of the environment with the need for continued food production in this country. We need to put this issue in perspective, however. Right now, to meet our proposed mandates for biofuels would require only about 5% of our production capabilities, less than the variables caused by weather systems. That leaves 95% dedicated to our high-quality food production. We've also invested $500 million towards the next generation of biofuels using cellulosic technology.

We're boosting our food aid by $50 million, maintaining our position as the second-largest contributor to the world aid food programs. Our biofuels strategy is the right plan for our rural communities, our producers, and our environment.

Farmers told us they need access to new and better crops. We're delivering through our support of science and innovation. We've moved quickly to get rid of KVD and that's going to mean new wheat varieties will get introduced here and commercialized here in Canada, instead of the United States.

Farmers asked for workable, bankable business risk management programs for Canadian farmers, and we delivered with the new business risk management suite, thanks in large part to great cooperation with the provinces, which helped us speed up the Kickstart and cost of production payments.

Farmers asked us for a transition period to Growing Forward, to ensure we developed the right programs, and we did that, negotiating the continuity year with the provinces and territories.

I truly believe the progress we have made on this is directly due to the respectful relationship we have built with the provinces and territories, and a solid consultative process including industry.

Farmers asked us for marketing choice in barley, and we're working hard to achieve that through Bill C-46.

We're also working on new guidelines for “Product of Canada” labelling on foods that will give Canadian consumers clear labelling information to make their informed choices. We'll give Canadian farmers and processors the credit they deserve with proper labelling on the products.

I know this committee has done a lot of legwork on this issue, and I certainly look forward to your report.

We also tabled legislation to overhaul food and product safety laws. This will not only boost confidence amongst our consumers at home that our product safety standards are second to none, it will also make Canadian agrifood products more competitive on that global market for consumers.

Farmers asked us to approach international trade with both solid offensive and defensive positions. At the World Trade Organization agricultural negotiations, we are working hard to open new markets and level the international playing field for our producers and processors. These efforts are complemented by our very active regional and bilateral negotiations agenda, where we are making real headway through our exporters.

This government continues its strong support for supply management. At the WTO agricultural negotiations, we are firmly defending the interests of our supply managed sectors.

We have demonstrated our support for supply management through other concrete actions as well. For example, we have taken action under GATT article 28 to limit the imports of low-duty milk protein concentrates through tariff rate quotas.

We are also taking action to finalize the operational section of the WTO special safeguards for supply managed goods, and we've also implemented cheese compositional standards.

Clearly Canadian farmers are succeeding in world markets. Last year Canada's overall agrifood trade hit a record $31.6 billion, an increase of almost 13% over the same period in 2006. Those market realities are reflected in our main estimates here today.

Here at home we have launched a full-court press to get the Growing Forward framework in place at our federal-provincial-territorial meeting this July. I'd like to see as many of the new programs announced as soon as possible after that.

We're constantly talking with farmers during this process because we want to get farmers the right tools for the job ahead.

Growing Forward is more than a federal-provincial-territorial agreement. It's the result of a lot of hard work and consultation with farmers, farm organizations, and others throughout the sector. Growing Forward is already delivering for farmers. It fully supports this government's strong competitiveness and innovation agenda.

Growing Forward aims to deliver important innovations, new market opportunities, provincial flexibility and affordability, improved service standards with streamlined regulations, and a competitive sector that can adjust to the changing global marketplace. Growing Forward will make the whole agricultural value chain stronger from field to port. Growing Forward is the right response to the realities and challenges facing the agricultural sector today.

Mr. Chair, with that snapshot of where we've been and where we're going, I'd be happy to open the floor to questions.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Minister Ritz.

I am going to suggest, because we only have an hour with the minister, that we go with five-minute rounds so that more members can get on the record.

I'll turn to you, Mr. Easter, to kick us off.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister. I was just thinking when you were going through your remarks that you must have gone back and looked at some of Minister Goodale's remarks, because they're getting increasingly long. They're long on politics and short on substance, I would say.

I'm going to ask a number of questions. If they're not all answered, the department may be able to get back to me. In your opening remarks, you went along the same lines as your parliamentary secretary so often does, leaving the impression that you're putting farmers first and listening to them. But I think the facts offer a different truth.

At a time when our hog and beef sector is in the worst crisis it's ever been in, the program came out. We support it, but a lot more needs to be done. I need to know, for that sector, are you looking at increasing the cap on CAIS, and if so, by how much? Because the crisis happened so suddenly, are you going to offer producers the option of going for either their regular CAIS or AgriStability? For those producers who have been faced with disease, will you offer the option of assuming a reference margin as if they had not had that disease? This would make a tremendous difference in the hog and beef sector. Although you're putting up to $400 million out there, the department indicated that the additional cost of these measures was only about $22 million. That, to me, is a pittance, and to a certain extent a slap in the face to the hog industry.

The potato industry is in trouble in parts of the country. In the tender fruit industry, they are tearing up their orchards and plants are closing. You're saying you're putting farmers first, but the department's farm income forecast highlights show that between 2004 and 2006 program spending was down by $1.2 billion. Here we're facing a terrible crisis in some commodities, and program spending is estimated to be down $1.2 billion. I'd like your response to that.

The last time you were here we expressed grave concern about the government breaking its word and cancelling the Canadian farm families options program, leaving thousands of farmers with broken promises and no money. I'm informed that those who were still in—the ones who were in the first year were allowed to be in the second—were paid out initially at 50¢ on the dollar. A commitment was made that the other moneys would be paid long before now. They haven't been paid, as I understand it, unless they've come out in the last two days. When will that other 50¢ on the dollar be paid? Or is it going to be less than was originally committed?

My last question relates to the Canadian Grain Commission. You will know that the labour unions put out a press release yesterday claiming that the producer protection programs will be slashed by 67%, grain quality programs will be reduced by almost half, and research programs will be cut by 60%. They're close to accurate. If you go through the estimate books, you will find $53 million for the quality assurance program for 2008-09, and $28 million for 2009-10. The grain quality research program is down from $11 million to $4 million. All areas in the Canadian Grain Commission seem to be cut dramatically. The producer protection programs are down from $4.8 million to $1.6 million. Why the slashing of spending on the Canadian Grain Commission quality assurance program, etc.?

I'll leave it at that for now, Mr. Chair.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

He has used just about his entire time, so I'll let you make a brief response, Mr. Minister.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Sure. I'll leave the money side of it out, and we'll get back to Mr. Easter on that.

I guess the biggest thing I would point to is the consultative process we've embarked on, as late as Monday morning, with industry on regulations and how we get on top of that. I have a copy of that regulatory report that the CFIA worked up. I'd be happy to leave that with the committee.

We've consulted with producers. We didn't do like Mr. Easter did and hop from airport to airport and have meetings right there. We actually get out to the farm gates and have round tables. We have spoken with hundreds of farmers within their environment and listened to them and constructed our products accordingly.

On the question of the cap, I've been very public about saying let's raise the cap in this environment we're in. We've done some number crunching. I'll be having meetings with the provinces coming up within the next 10 days or two weeks on that particular issue. I myself would like to see the caps raised. We've pushed the numbers. We've worked with the $3 million cap model, which is double. We've also worked with a $5 million cap, and of course some of the industry are saying no cap at all, which is not on. That just isn't going to happen, so I'm that honest with them.

The member from Malpeque also said that we should readjust the reference margins as though BSE never happened. There are farmers out there who would ask me to readjust the reference margins as though the Liberal government never happened.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

I'm not talking BSE, Mr. Minister. It's the circovirus in the hog industry in Ontario and the specific case related to that. It's not BSE.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

I've had that particular discussion with Clare Schlegel and the folks from the CPC. We've looked at it. We're still trying to decide how we would implement that and not be countervailable. We'll work it forward.

I guess I'm out of time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

Monsieur Bellavance.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Thank you, Minister, for appearing before the committee today.T

Since we are dealing with the Estimates, I have decided to change my approach. I would like you to remember an issue which will hopefully not be forgotten, the compensation for avian flu. I have contacted you, like I had contacted the previous minister in 2007, about the concerns of poultry and egg producers. This is a rather technical matter. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has decided to offer $4.77 for each 21-week laying hen, whereas the Canadian Egg Marketing Board has set the value at $17.21. For a typical Canadian flock, this would represent a loss of $225,000. It would be a loss of $10 for each 25-week laying hen that is part of a flock of breeder hens of the broiler type. This change was decided by your predecessor.

At the time, Mr. Strahl had stated—and I remember that very well because I have his letter answering my query—that the amount of compensation for the loss of a flock would be changed in a first phase but that there would be a second phase administered by the Department which would lead to a new development in the context of the new agricultural policy, and that additional compensation would be provided after discussions and negotiations with industry and stakeholders. I would like to know what is going on because producers are still wondering about this situation. As far as I can see, there has never been a second phase.

I would like to know what the situation is and if you have followed the recommendations of the previous Minister. When he left his portfolio, there had not yet been any discussions about a second phase or, if there had been, they were aimed at one thing and one thing only, cutting the amount of compensation. You have to understand—this is not new for you—that those producers come under supply management. With the recently announced programs relating to business risk, they end up losing money. If they want to use those programs relating to business risk, they will not be able to get to any appropriate compensation.

So, I would like to know what your position is on this matter and if you intend to answer the concerns of those producers whose future might be compromised to if they cannot get any appropriate compensation in case of bad luck, that is to say in case of an avian flu outbreak. Nobody wants that to happen about we know that there has been at least one outbreak in BC.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance, for your question.

There was also an avian flu outbreak in Saskatchewan, not just in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. We did learn some lessons in the Lower Mainland--predominantly, that the quicker you act, the faster you can contain it. It took us a matter of hours to decide to wrap the barn and put the birds down.

There are still some ongoing discussions, as you rightly point out, on the compensatory side. Up to this point the government has always covered the cost of the animals--the birds in this case in an AI barn. In the Saskatchewan instance, we also removed the litter from the barn to help the farmer get back in business quicker than normal. As to spraying down the barn and making sure everything was done, that's generally up to the producer. In a lot of cases the industry itself steps in and helps, as it did in British Columbia. The province picked up a certain portion of the expenses in British Columbia; the Saskatchewan government did not. So it left that producer wondering what was going on.

We are continuing discussions on the value of those animals, and there's basically a double point being made. One is the cost of the actual bird or animal at that stage. We have that very succinctly laid out with some changes, after consulting with industry. Those changes came into effect last September in the latest go-round. Since that time industry has started to say we have to go further. There was loss of business, and time was lost as they re-developed to that.... A laying hen doesn't become a laying hen when it comes out of the egg; it has to be raised to that point. So they're saying there's that disconnect. How do we cover that off?

I guess I would point to the new suite of business risk management programs on the agri-recovery side, the disaster side. Possibly there's something we can work at there. Those discussions are ongoing. We have worked lately with the poultry side on the AI, the avian flu surveillance side, to make sure we are up to the standards required by other countries, not so much from an export nature but from the genetic side of poultry, and so on, that we export. We had to hit certain markers. We've had those agreements made with the poultry industry. The blood tests are beginning in the barns, as they should be. We're starting to move ahead and reopening borders, especially into the European Union where our genetics are very much in demand.

The discussions on the value of the animals at the time a barn is put down or a herd is put down are always ongoing. We'll certainly work with industry to try to come up to speed as much as we can.

9:25 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I wonder what is preventing an agreement. Is the amount of $17.21 too high?

The Federal Court decision in the Rob Donaldson case has ordered departments to take account of broader criteria than those applied in the context of the present review of the maximum amounts, to reestablish Mr. Donaldson's compensation whose flocks had to be destroyed because of avian flu.

Has there been any fast-tracking of your discussions because of the Federal Court decision? Is the $17.21 amount too high for you? Why can you not come to an agreement with the producers on an appropriate amount?