Agriculture Committee on March 12th, 2012

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

You commented earlier, Minister, about “beyond the border” and harmonizing regulations. Is that part of this whole process, then?

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

It's an addition to this process. We started working and we put together committees from both the Canadian and American sides working on how we harmonize agriculture better than we do now. Canada has always been held in abeyance, waiting for the newest generic, whether it's a veterinary drug or a chemical or a pesticide. We always started over at zero again.

We're now looking at recognizing sound science, as we do on other issues—American especially, European science, those types of bodies that are world-known. We'll start from their findings, and then add on the Canadian parameters so we have those available to our processors and our farmers much more quickly than we've had access to before.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay.

In terms of the Wheat Board, Minister, I know when we passed the new freedom to market for farmers, we did have a number of pro-choice farmers here, and I had some discussions with one of those farmers in terms of ability to market their grains. In fact, that individual said to me that now that the new Wheat Board is able to market, if they can get him a better price he'll use the new Wheat Board.

I think that is very obvious in terms of what the farmers were looking for. I wonder if you could elaborate a little more on the recent comments you made today on the new Wheat Board and their ability to market.

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

We had Ian White, the president and CEO of the CWB, in China with us. COFCO is an agency in China that's been buying directly from the Wheat Board for a number of years. We signed a three-year contract on wheat and barley, I believe, while we were over there for the Olympics in 2010. We were over there to celebrate beef access, but we also celebrated that with a good-sized contract. We wanted to assure them the contract would be honoured, and we also wanted to assure the people at COFCO that the Wheat Board now has the ability to market other commodities as well. I know they're in discussions on canola, which is great. There is a tremendous amount of canola going into China, and if the Wheat Board is able to market canola through COFCO and get us into different marketplaces for some of the crushers or meal sales we have now, that will just ice the cake.

There's a tremendous opportunity for the CWB to be involved as a broker or as a pool. They have begun their farm meetings. They had the first one in Oak Bluff earlier this week. About 130 or 140 farmers showed up to find out exactly what was going to be available. We're celebrating the fact that they've signed their first logistics agreement with Cargill. As I said in my speech, that will give them access to 34 inland terminals and four different port facilities and the logistics that Cargill has available to them. So that's good news.

I know they're not stopping there. I know the board and CEO are dealing with other logistics groups as well in order to make as much use of them as they can in getting into markets all around the world. It's a tremendous opportunity for farmers to become reinvigorated.

There are a number of flooded acres in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the easiest or quickest way to bring them back is with a coarse grain, as opposed to with some of the special crops or canola. There are weeds to offset and so on, and barley or wheat is much better on that type of ground to get it back into shape the first year than canola or a special crop would be.

We know there are going to be extra acres, and we know there's going to be more product to move, and we look forward to those challenges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Atamanenko, you have five minutes.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much, Minister, Mr. Da Pont, and Mr. Knubley, for being here.

I'll fire my questions at you, Mr. Minister. I don't have a chance to do this very often.

Following up on some questions on CFIA, there is some concern that, for example, 79% of the food we import comes from ten countries. Have we done any periodic equivalency audits lately? Since 2010 we know that only 2% of the produce and products coming in are inspected, and not for food safety. The concern is with equivalency.

I have a specific question in regard to Les Viandes de la Petite Nation. Have any specific changes been instituted at this slaughterhouse since CFIA became aware of investigation evidence showing issues within the plant?

My third question has to do with low-level presence with regard to GE alfalfa. As you are opening up new markets, Minister, has the department given any thought to looking at the impact of GE alfalfa, if introduced on the market, for farmers currently exporting alfalfa? In other words, are we holding off the registration until we can be sure?

My next question has to do with the Canadian Grain Commission. There is some concern that the elimination of mandatory requirements for inward inspection and weighing at licensed terminals and transfer elevators could hurt farmers. Is our government prepared to ensure protection for small and mid-sized producers against biased private companies that will issue grain quality...? Will user fees be doubled? Will the Canadian Grain Commission be modernized through changes to the Canada Grain Act prior to any increase in user fees?

Lastly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I think with that number of questions and due to the time, we should let the minister answer them, Alex.

I'll come back to you.

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

I'll be as precise as I can, and then I'll maybe have George add on about CFIA.

As I understand it, we've done ten audits so far on other countries. As you say, we predominantly buy from ten different countries. We're constantly doing audits. They're in to audit ours, and we're in to audit theirs. There's that reciprocity all the time.

Regarding the Quebec horse slaughter, yes, there was a change made to that particular facility. I could let George tell you exactly what that is, if you'd like.

[George Da Pont, President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

We enhanced our inspection. We enhanced our testing in both facilities. In the last three or four months we have had several corrective actions taken in the facility.

We took the video seriously, as we always take these things. We up our inspections, and when we find problems we work to correct them.

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

We also found that video was eight or nine months old. It's sometimes hard to go back that far, but certainly we go in and look with a keener eye to any facility that comes to us like that. It would be better to have more current information, if at all possible.

On LLP, Canada is sponsoring an international low-level presence conference in March, and I'll be at it in Vancouver the middle of next week. There are some concerns that with the efficacy of testing now, some trace elements in organic products shipped in the same container as GM canola or GM sugar cane would stop these organic products from being accepted into certain markets. So we want to make sure the zero level that Canada enforces right now.... Zero is no longer zero. With testing you can get down to parts per billion, which makes zero a nonentity.

We're having discussions with developing nations and developed countries around the world as to what the proper percentage should be in low-level presence, just to make sure that organic and non-GM products aren't caught, simply because they've been in the same container, truck, rail car, or ship as something before that. We're having that discussion, and I think it's a good one.

I have never, in all of the international trade I have done, had GE alfalfa raised as a concern. I haven't had GE products raised as a concern anywhere. In the European Union we have good, frank discussions with them about the required changes to their levels of GE. They are accepting GE on the industrial side in feed and so on, but not for human consumption. They've gone part-way, and if you recognize that science is safe, then science is safe all across the board. We continue to work with them.

On the Grain Commission, mandatory inward inspection is a completely different issue from inspecting at the pit as you drop your product. You can have your grain inspected by the Grain Commission before you take the sample around to sell it. When the sample is taken at the elevator, they'll verify that it's the same. That will still be done by the Grain Commission. Some of the elevators use a private sector company to do that, but you still have the right as a farmer to have the Grain Commission do it. If you disagree, you have the right to have the Grain Commission verify it. That's still there.

Inward inspection is when the elevator company of record, the buyer of record, starts to blend off the grains they have in store to get to a 2% or 3% variance so they can sell it for an increased value. It really doesn't enhance what farmers get. They keep a Grain Commission staffer there as they blend, and ask if it is good enough. We're saying since that does not necessarily turn a direct result back to the farm gate, there should be a cost for it.

Do you see the distinction I'm getting at, Alex? When it's dropped in the pit you absolutely have the right to a secondary inspection or inspection by CGC. Once it's owned by the grain company, which is easier now, because once I dump my grain in the pit it's no longer mine.... Under the Wheat Board it went to tidewater and it was still mine. I paid freight, elevation, and all those other charges until it got on the boat going to whatever market. That is no longer on. Now when I dump it in in Viterra's pit, Cargill's pit, or my local farmer-owned elevator, it's their commodity and is no longer mine. So the inward grading becomes part of their costs, not mine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Time is up. We have to recess now and go for votes.

I understand, Mr. Minister, that you're willing to come back for the last ten minutes after the vote.

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

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I know you have a cabinet meeting later.

We'll recess now and go to Mr. Lobb after the votes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We are resuming our meeting. We'll wait for the minister to get ready. I know he's a busy man.

We'll continue questioning.

Mr. Lobb, you have five minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question to the minister is on the CFIA service commitment announcement made recently, but first I want to lay a little context behind why I'm asking the question.

When I got involved seriously in politics over six years ago, or actually closer to seven years ago now, the price of corn was under $3 per bushel. The price of soybeans was under $7 per bushel. We all can remember where the price of beef was. I could go on and on. Since that time, the price of land in my area in Ontario has tripled, and it has doubled since 2008.

Last week the Huron County Federation of Agriculture had its annual meeting with the MP and the MPP. It was certainly a very positive meeting, much different from the all-candidates debates of six years ago. All sectors were quite pleased. But the one area they had some comments about was the CFIA.

Certainly the announcement you made on the service commitment was a valued announcement. I wonder if you could elaborate and expand on that point.

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

Sure. Thanks, Ben.

Absolutely, there have been some tremendous changes to the positive when it comes to agriculture and the farm gate in this country in the last five years. Some of it's global. Some of it's because of the quality and consistency of supply that Canadian farmers bring to the table.

The one thing we as a government identified early on were the regulations that hinder the speed of commerce, whether at the border, or because of our own regulations, within the domestic setting here in Canada.

You always have a problem when you're the regulatory agency. You're the referee in the hockey game. You're the umpire. You're not going to please everybody, but there are ways to deliver the bad news or to deliver the work you need to do in a way that is constructive, in a way that is helpful, and in a way that builds a rapport between the regulator and the regulated.

Certainly we have to have regulations. No one says that we should be without regulations. But they have to make sense. We've built a number of silos within government that need to be bridged. There are layers and layers of regulations that no longer make sense that have to be addressed. There is a separate committee for the scrutiny of regulations within government that attempts to look at all of that. But it is a daunting task, in my estimation.

That being said, under president Carole Swan and now under president George Da Pont, the CFIA is doing its best to modernize itself to make sure that it delivers the work required, the food safety required, and a number of other issues they work on in a way that is commerce-friendly and that delivers without being a hammer every time. Certainly there are personalities at play, in some cases, on the front lines.

That being said, everybody is allowed to have a bad day, whether you're the regulator or the regulated. But instances have come to light over time that have shown us that we need to have a gentler hand at times.

CFIA, working with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and looking at other models within the federal government, has developed an umbrella code of conduct and six separate booklets on different aspects of what it is they deliver. As we add to their workload, they will maybe add some other booklets.

It's a tremendous piece of work. It's a way to pave the way forward to make sure that people on the front line know exactly what's expected of them and what the parameters are they can work within. In some cases it's just a matter of common sense and making sure that the same rule is levelled here on Thursday that is going to be levelled over there on Tuesday. That used to drive people crazy.

I think we're on the right track. Certainly there's still work to be done, but it's a tremendous opportunity for CFIA to come of age.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I have one last quick question.

Certainly there will be dollars committed in the upcoming budget and included in the estimates here today on the Market Access Secretariat. It's been, in my opinion, a huge success. I wonder if you could tell the committee and the people watching at home about some of the initiatives they have for forwarding our agenda.

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

I can't commit on an upcoming budget. Everything is still in flux. But I can tell you that CFIA again plays a very important role on the Market Access Secretariat. We have CFIA personnel dedicated to market access, who are our eyes and ears on the ground. They go in and work on some of the technical issues. We now have veterinarians with CFIA on the ground in Moscow and in Beijing, China, due to the ever-increasing value of those markets and some of the problems we have on certificates and advocacy and so on.

It's been a tremendous opportunity to showcase what Canada can do. Fred Gorrell, heading up the Market Access Secretariat under Agriculture Canada, works hand in hand with trade, with DFAIT, with other government departments on other issues and so on and has done a tremendous job and put together a crack team.

They've stood us in good stead. As you well know, just a short time ago we received access for beef back into Korea. A lot of that is the great work of our embassy, our industry, and the Market Access Secretariat. Getting tallow back into China was a triple play by those same players.

We've proven it works. We've shown that the return on our investment with the Market Access Secretariat is second to none.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

The minister was gracious enough to come back, and we have about five minutes left. In order to be fair, I'm going to split that time between Ms. Raynault and Mr. Zimmer.

I suggest you ask one question and I'll go from there. Thank you.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, since my time is limited, I am going to ask a quick question. The government is anticipating a $5 million drop in its policy on development of rural areas and cooperatives.

Could you tell us which programs are affected and what will the impact of those cuts be?

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

Well, I'm not going to speak to what the cuts may or may not be at the end of the day. I can assure you that we at Agriculture Canada have looked at the value of every program where we can drive efficiencies, where we feel that industry itself can do a better job than government does.

When it comes to rural development, of course we share that with the provinces and with the local municipality of record. We will strive to work with them every step of the way. I'm not sure that overlapping or repeating some of the great work they do on the ground is the right way to go, so we'll look at any ways we can to streamline our scarce dollars and make sure we get what I'll call the best bang for our buck when it comes to rural affairs and rural development.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

The government must support rural development in Quebec and in the small communities in the west of the country. In this case, why are there these major cuts?

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

As I said, nothing has been completely finalized as of yet. There are ways to proceed in a more efficient manner than some of what we're doing now.

When we talk about the next suite of Growing Forward programs, GF2, we'll be able to underscore a lot more important work, I think, in rural Canada simply by supporting our farmers at the farm gate and our small businesses that pertain to farmers. Whether it's inputs or processing on the other side, that will actually do more for rural development than having a targeted agency to sort of adjudicate what's good and what's not good.

I think there's a better way to deliver rural development than just talking about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll turn it over to Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming.

The question has already been asked by my colleague, but I want to specifically ask about a B.C. concern as it relates to the CFIA service commitment as well. We have seen that a B.C. cattleman's ranch had been under an unduly long period of quarantine. It begged the question of whether the service of CFIA was adequately serving farmers and cattle producers. I would just like you to possibly restate, for the benefit of my constituents as well, a bit more about that service commitment and how it relates to an issue like this, and that farmers won't be unduly delayed for a minor issue, as well.