Agriculture Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

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

Sure.

The changes at the CWB actually predicate the need for changes at the CGC, the Canadian Grain Commission. Once the mandatory single-desk requirement of the Canadian Wheat Board was eliminated, we no longer as farmers were held hostage throughout the whole system for the costs incurred to move that product right onto the vessel at port.

We now have commercial agreements. When you as a farmer take your wheat—at $9 plus, which everyone is loving—to an elevator and drop it in the elevator pit at the elevator of your choice, you're graded and paid and you go home. You're no longer held hostage for the storage, demurrage, grade changes, weight changes—all those other things that used to accrue and were hidden in the pooling accounts of the Canadian Wheat Board. You now have your money and you've gone home. Now it's up to the line company, the elevator, the railways, the port authorities, and the shipping authorities to have commercial agreements that move that product through expeditiously. We're seeing that happen.

As I noted in my speech, we're seeing increased volumes at Thunder Bay and Halifax, which have been ignored for years, because shippers are picking the most advantageous route to make their commercial agreements work. We're no longer held hostage by the CWB, which was very prescriptive as to where the grain had to go and how it was handled. Any delays, of course, came out of the pooled accounts, because you were at the bottom of the scale.

With the changes at the CGC, then, we no longer require that inward inspection between the line company, the elevator, and the port, because you're no longer in control of the grain; it's no longer yours, so we can get rid of that mandatory inward inspection and weighing. It can be done now by third parties. If the line companies decide they want to blend to get a different grade, they can do that using a third party, but at the end of the day, you're no longer held hostage.

There's about a $20 million benefit to producers and taxpayers of Canada who used to be charged for that service. It will no longer be required. That's the main change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Minister, I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt, as enthralling as it is.

Go ahead, Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of comments and a question.

I listened intently to Mr. Mayers' explanation. We are talking about a memo that went to the Brooks XL plant. There are two things.

One is—and Mr. Da Pont, you also said this, or it may have been both of you or just one or the other—that this is an explicit instruction to a food safety inspector, whose mandate is to inspect food, that they should do one piece and one piece only, and that is to inspect the Japan stuff and ignore the rest; that's what you're saying this is. Then we'll catch it later—don't worry about it.

Square the circle. You just had the largest beef recall in Canadian history from this plant. What happened to all of your safeguards on the other side of this? If we were even to believe that somehow this didn't impact upon anything else, that somehow this was all well and good, you just suffered, sir, the largest beef recall in this country's history. This memo comes from the same place, and you were still re-issuing it last year.

I find it absolutely dumbfounding that somehow we can't just say, “This should never have happened. We won't let it happen again; we're going to change this. We're going to tell our food inspectors that when they see something wrong with food, no matter where it goes, we're going to fix it”, yet you're trying to explain to me that it's okay to ignore it, because somewhere else we'll catch it.

We didn't catch it, sir, so help me understand how this system, which you say works, did in fact work—because it didn't, quite frankly.

[George Da Pont]

Well, again, sir, I come back to the main point. I think there are two separate aspects to the question and the comments that you've just made.

As we have explained on several occasions now, that memo was explicit instruction to one station, whose job at that station was not safety-related. That job at that station, as we've emphasized, was to certify certain requirements that Japan has for export.

That in no way diminishes the overall safety system. You're quite correct that we have had one of the largest recalls in Canadian history, with the recent situation with XL Foods. You and others have asked some very valid questions. As we've indicated, there will be an expert group of people who will look at the situation, analyze it in depth, and come back with an analysis of why in that particular situation the internal controls in the plant did not work.

However, to link that memo with that situation is, I think, inappropriate, because they're really dealing with two different things. No one is trying to say that we should not have a thoughtful review of all aspects of the XL situation and the recall that went with it.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I know the minister has to leave at 9:30, and then my friends from CFIA are going to stay so that we can explore this some more.

I'm going to allow my colleague, Madame Brosseau, to ask a couple of questions at least.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses and the minister for being here today. I will be asking my questions in French.

In supplementary estimates (B) for 2012-13, I see that $70,000 was allocated to the AgriRecovery program to help a farmer in British Columbia. I am not calling that assistance into question. But since July, my colleagues and I have spoken repeatedly, both in the House and the media, about the farmers in the Pontiac who have been hard hit by a drought.

Quebec is waiting for Ottawa to make the first announcements of financial support. Once again, I would like to know when funding for the Pontiac farmers will be announced. Have you allocated any such amount in supplementary estimates (B)?

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

No. It doesn't need to be in the supplementary estimates, because AgriRecovery is a demand-based program under the whole Growing Forward envelope. There is an allocation of some $125 million a year as a line item in the overall budget. We will be drawing on that in regard to the drought in Ontario and Quebec. The assessments are complete. That announcement is pending.

For those who have to sell off breeding stock in order to get through this season, we've also made sure that there are tax deferrals available so they can buy back in again next year and not trigger a tax.

We've also put some dollars and some strength behind the Hay East project, which is ongoing. I don't think it will reach the level that everyone needs and expects. There is hay in Quebec that needs to be moved, or animals that need to be moved to the feed, and we will certainly help facilitate that.

I had a number of phone calls with my colleague in Quebec, François Gendron. We had a face-to-face meeting about two weeks ago in Montreal and ironed out the last steps in order to facilitate this, so sit tight. The announcement will be soon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards is next.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I know you're here today on the supplementary estimates, and we have focused largely on another issue. I completely understand why that might be; certainly on first glance at this memo I think all of us would have been concerned, but I certainly appreciate the explanation you and the officials have provided in explaining that we're talking about a particular station that was designed particularly to deal with exports to Japan. We completely understand now that very clearly all the processes apply to Canada in the same way as to all our exports. I think we can be confident that everything being done is what should be being done. We appreciate that.

I'd like to move to the topic we are here to discuss today, the supplementary estimates. I have a couple of particular questions.

In the supplementary estimates, I see that just over $27 million is going to be spent on Growing Forward initiatives that support a profitable and innovative agriculture industry.

We hear at this committee time and time again, and I hear from farmers, how important investments in research and innovation and in science are to the agriculture industry. It was fairly recently that you concluded with your provincial counterparts the next agreement—for the next five years, I think it is—on the Growing Forward framework.

Could you touch on some of the highlights of Growing Forward 2, and particularly talk about the greater emphasis that's going to be put on research and innovation? What will it mean for the future of agriculture, and what will it do for farmers here in Canada?

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

Growing Forward 2, when it comes to science and research, innovation, and marketing, builds on the very strong successes we had under Growing Forward 1. Growing Forward 1 led to the development of the Market Access Secretariat, which has proven that they punch well above their weight in working on technical details, opening trade corridors, and making sure that science-based decisions are applied. We will enhance that in Growing Forward 2.

That's on the market development side. It builds on the work that the whole government is doing on trade and financial investments with other countries and so on to facilitate agriculture. Every free trade agreement that we have signed as a government has expanded our access for agriculture and has been very positive from that standpoint, to the point that we exported a record number of commodities last year with a record value.

We will continue to build on the science and research side coming out of the science clusters. This was the first time ever that industry was involved in developing what the end result should be. Then we started to target the result that industry needed and required and then put together academia, provincial dollars, federal dollars, and industry itself in order to come forward with a complete envelope to deliver the result.

We're no longer going to base research on the volume of research you can do or how many new varieties of potatoes you can do, but on how many are actually wanted by industry and what the traits are that industry is requiring. It's a much more targeted, focused ability to produce.

Over the five-year period of the next Growing Forward suite, starting next April, there will be some $3 billion. That's a tremendous amount of money. It's $600 million per year. It will help us leverage investments from around the world, too, to develop the science and research in that capacity here in Canada, again delivering the results that farmers are asking for. It's very focused, very targeted, with a good, solid pot of money.

I've been talking to a lot of the industry groups. I attended the GrowCanada forum the other night. They're all excited about this and about the ability to move forward. They recognize that we need a reactive suite of programs on the business risk side, but that the future of agriculture relies more on the proactive side—the competitive advantage that science and research will give to farmers, the innovation that will be driven out of it, the efficiencies that will be driven out of it, and then of course coupling this to markets to make sure that we can sell all that great product.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's excellent news, Minister. This is much appreciated, I know.

As I've talked to farmers over the years, that's what they've told me; that they need this in order to have a profitable industry.

It certainly is the future. With all the trade deals we've been signing in opening up markets for farmers, they say that having the ability to innovate will allow them to take the greatest advantage of those markets, and that makes for a very profitable industry.

They very much appreciate that, and I appreciate what you've said today.

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

To build on that, Mr. Richards, we're also in discussions with our trading partners about science-based decisions—low-level presence, maximum residue levels, all those other things that go in concert with trade routes. We don't want to see phytosanitary trade barriers put up. We don't want to see non-scientific standards accepted by anyone. In working with our export partners, we've had some good success with this aspect as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. I have to stop you there.

Ms. Brosseau is next.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have another question. Farmers are really hurting and they're still waiting. It's mind-boggling and incredibly long in coming. The existing programs aren't doing the job and winter is nearly here.

Could you give me an estimate as to when the farmers in the Pontiac will get an answer regarding AgriRecovery? Do you have a date in mind as to when people will get a real answer? I know you have 45 business days to respond, but do you have a deadline regardless?

Would you be able to tell us when, please?

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

No, I don't have a specific date in mind, but in discussions with my provincial colleagues—with Marcel Groleau, the head of the UPA—we sent very strong signals some weeks ago that AgriRecovery would be in play.

We've also made the same Hay East operations available to farmers in the Pontiac. A couple of them have taken advantage of it, which is good news. At the end of the day, farmers know that we have their best interests at heart and that they can rely on this government to come through with what's required. They will also have the choice, Ms. Brosseau, to either move the animals to the feed or the feed to the animals, whichever makes more economic sense.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I recently had the pleasure of meeting the president of the UPA, Mr. Groleau. A lot of people don't think it's right for the Canadian government not to be involved in risk management for our farms.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is asking for $28.81 million for programs under the Growing Forward initiative, including $10.4 million to minimize the occurrence and extent of risk incidents. Which programs aimed at minimizing the occurrence and extent of risk incidents will this money fund?

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

I think the dollar figure you're talking about—and I stand to be corrected—is the unused allocation to Quebec for AgriFlex moneys. I think that's what you're speaking of. That's at the discretion of the Government of Quebec. Should they decide to take on projects in the next short time to make use of those dollars, of course we'll be more than happy to discuss it with them and work to facilitate those actions.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Can't you tell us what types of programs that money will fund?

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

Well, that would be up to Quebec to decide and bring forward to us.

The parameters are fairly broad. The only thing that AgriFlex dollars cannot be used for is to enhance the business risk model of programs—the insurances, and so on. Other than that, the application of AgriFlex dollars is quite broad.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I have another question for you. You've just returned from Brussels. I would like some assurance on another issue, supply management.

Is supply management still on the bargaining table?

Supply management—

supply management that's on the table.

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

We've always said that when we start these discussions, supply management is on the table with everything else, but we make it very clear that it's one of our defensive positions. The supply-managed sectors were with us in Brussels last week and are quite buoyed by the actions of this government in that we continue to maintain our unequivocal support for our supply-managed sector here in Canada.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Can you tell me how much access will be given to dairy products, cheese in particular? Will it be 2% or 3%?

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

Well, all discussions continue. We continue to say that no agreement will be signed unless it's in the best interests of Canadians. We continue to maintain that position. There are still a number of issues to be discussed and worked through, but at this point, I don't foresee any changes that would threaten the validity and the value of our supply-managed system.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you. I hope Canadians will be better off under the agreements.

I will give the rest of my time to my colleague.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Yes, thank you.