Agriculture Committee on Feb. 28th, 2013

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

Actually, I wanted to pick up on this topic of the estimates process. It sometimes seems like the opposition maybe doesn't understand it that well. It is difficult to understand for the average person. Let's be honest, sometimes it actually seems like one maybe almost needs an accounting degree to understand it. I want to just go through that. We all know what the estimates process is. It's obviously how we track and approve spending and how Parliament does that.

As an example, when we look at the main estimates for Agriculture, although it can appear there that funding has gone down in some areas compared to last year's main estimates, when I look at it I see that there is a change between Growing Forward and Growing Forward 2 this year.

Maybe you could explain the estimates process and how the estimates might change throughout the year.

I don't know which official is the appropriate person to answer this, but maybe you want to start by explaining that process a bit more for the committee's benefit.

[Pierre Corriveau]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically, the estimates that are produced, which are in front of you today, are the authority received to date at a point in time. That normally is around early January. There is a cut-off date that is imposed by Treasury Board and any subsequent approval will be reflected in the supplementary estimates.

If you refer, for example, to page II-1 of the estimates, or in general, when we were at this committee last year, the estimates of the department were about $2.4 billion, and throughout the three supplementary estimates process we increased the budget of the department by about $369 million, to $2.8 billion. This is a trend that has been consistent with the history of this department, basically to a high of $800 million in fiscal year 2009-10 and, as I mentioned, $369 million last year. The estimates that are produced at a given time are like a snapshot or picture of the authority that we have in place.

Since then, as the minister said earlier, the department has received the authority to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the provinces. The funding for that was not approved in time to be included in the estimates, but it will be coming back to this committee in supplementary estimates at a later date, and this will be reflected in the future budget of the department.

Again, it's a picture in time and things move throughout the year. Last year, the Wheat Board, again, was not reflected in the main estimates. The department sought cabinet authority and Treasury Board authority, and the money was flowed back into the department in supplementary estimates (B).

This is a consistent process. It's like a wheel in motion and basically at the time of the production of the estimates, we take a picture of what the authorities are. We wish we could include everything we can up until today, but the system being what the system is...to make sure that these numbers are reflected and put in the department's budget for April 1.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Good. Thank you. That is appreciated.

It's too bad that not all the opposition members were there to hear that, because I think sometimes they do need to hear so they can understand how exactly that does transpire.

I will continue on with the estimates. During the negotiations, the consultations that took place toward Growing Forward 2, the opposition was claiming and predicting that some of the tweaks being made to the business risk management suite would mean the destruction of the entire agriculture sector in Canada. It was doom and gloom.

Certainly, that has obviously proven not to be the case—big surprise. They always want to raise alarms, and I guess that's their job, but clearly the main estimates show that the total dollars that have been allocated for our business risk programs are virtually the same, with the recognition that money has been shifted with a view to ensuring the long-term well-being of the industy. But regarding changes to business risk management in Growing Forward 2, the main estimates, year over year, don't change.

Can you please provide the committee with some details regarding the new Growing Forward 2 business risk management programming?

[Pierre Corriveau]

I'll deal with the financial aspect of this, and my colleague will discuss the programming side.

You're correct. If you look at the main estimates, last year at the same time it was $1.295 billion, and currently it's $1.291 billion for the BRM elements of our program in the department.

Now within those there are shifts up down. For example, if you look at AgriInsurance, there's a significant increase in the estimated amount to be devoted to AgriInsurance. That's, again, demand-driven. As the minister said earlier, if the sector does well, then there are fewer payments in some of the programs.

But I'll let my colleague Greg explain to you the GF2 changes in those various programs.

[Greg Meredith, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Pierre's right. In the case of business risk management programs that are demand-driven, if you don't have demand, you don't pay out. In this case, in AgriStability in particular, we expect lower payments, because the sector is doing extremely well.

The changes that you noted were agreed to by FPT ministers, so ministers from all provinces, territories and the federal government agreed to changes. But they wanted to make sure there would still be fairly extensive coverage for producers, so when the sector is doing very well, the premiums for insurance go up, for example, because there's more acreage being brought into production, and because the crop has a higher value. So AgriInsurance payments, which the federal government shares with producers and provinces, go up. In either case there's a payment mechanism that's going to be there, either on the insurance side or on the AgriStability side.

At the same time we are keeping AgriInvest, and that's actually growing, because it's based on net sales. So as sales go up, the payments under AgriInvest go up.

The disaster coverage remains in place, so that if there are floods, if there are other weather- or pest-induced disasters, farmers will be covered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, thank you for appearing before us today.

Mr. Everson, my question is for you.

If you look at vote 20, you'll see two different amounts being removed from CFIA and heading back over to Agriculture: $83,700 and $364,000, two separate amounts from CFIA. The first amount of $83,700 was an “adjustment to funding previously provided for the development of a traceability information sharing solution”, and the $346,000 was an “adjustment to funding previously provided to support programs that address food safety, biosecurity and traceability” specifically. In total, that's about $448,000 from food safety under CFIA.

Why is the department removing that? What measures remain on traceability, and in what specific amount?

[Peter Everson]

Thank you very much for the question, Chair.

Specifically, Agriculture and Agri-Food provides us funding for certain initiatives. At the completion of the initiatives, if we haven't spent the full amount, we return the remainder through the supplementary estimates process. In fact, we have returned a larger amount than has the IM/IT space, which has provided significant funding to help us develop a traceability portal. Through cooperation with Agriculture, we found some lower-cost solutions than what we had originally forecast, and we are also returning that money through the supplementary estimates process.

In terms of the overall funding of the traceability specifically, our portion is reasonably small in the CFIA—and I can undertake to give you the exact numbers—but I'd like Mr. Mayers to expand a little bit on our work in the traceability area.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Could you answer briefly? Because I do have another question for you, Mr. Mayers.

[Paul Mayers]

Certainly.

Quite briefly, the CFIA focus in the context of traceability has been the collaborative work with stakeholders to provide the regulatory backstops. We've worked closely with the department in advancing the development of the traceability systems, and, as my colleague said, some of that has been supported by funding direct from the department.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

My next question to you, Mr. Mayers, is this. Access to information, which we've had the benefit of in the last couple of months, tell me—tells us, the public—that, really, the number and proportion of veterinarians on the front line, as opposed to elsewhere, has, in fact, gone down. I keep hearing and we keep being told that in fact numbers have gone up. While over the course of time numbers went up, this last year they have gone down. I'm beginning to feel—and I don't mean to discredit you in any way, because you have to work with the minister and the ministry, and, of course, you have to toe the line—as though there's a bit of shell game going on here every time we ask about numbers.

Will you confirm the accuracy, and will tell us specifically by how many the number of veterinarians has gone down?

[Paul Mayers]

I can't speak to specific veterinarians. What I can speak to is the increase in our inspection staff, that increase of 676 employees as reflected on our website, between March 2006 and 2012.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Sorry to interrupt you, and I'm not trying to harass you, but I'm not talking about all the employees. I'm talking about veterinarians. I'm talking about the front line. That's where the problems begin. That's where they have to be found. That's where they weren't found last year, and it seems this year now too at Cardinal.

Would you please tell me how many fewer veterinarians you have now?

[Paul Mayers]

I would have to undertake to communicate to the committee on that specific question—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's great.

[Paul Mayers]

—related to the veterinarians.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's fantastic. We'll accept that undertaking. You can submit it to the chair.

I have a final question, and I'm not sure, but maybe Mr. Meredith can answer this.

How much is the ministry spending on advertising?

[Greg Meredith]

Unfortunately, I can't answer that, but we will undertake to get back to you.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay, and would you also explain whether it has gone up or down from last year?

[Greg Meredith]

Yes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

In your—

[Greg Meredith]

In the written response?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

In your written response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen and madam, for being here this afternoon and this morning.

Chair, I have a motion on the floor, but I'm going to take advantage of the knowledge from this group here to talk about that motion a little bit, if it's okay with Mr. Allen.

Our government's priority on the part of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has been not only to make targeted investments in our food safety system but also to modernize the CFIA's regulatory and legislative authorities. A good example was the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which we just passed here last fall.

One of the powers you were granted was the ability of CFIA to require importers to be licensed, which will allow CFIA to more closely keep tabs on food that comes into our country. Further, given that import licences are for the private good of importing companies, the CFIA is planning to charge a fee for these import licences.

Regarding the CFIA's user fee proposal for import licences tabled in Parliament on February 15th, can you explain why this is necessary and a positive step for food safety?