Evidence of meeting #69 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was traceability.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
—that sooner or later the money will be there. But you have been the minister with the two biggest recalls. We had E. coli last year. We had the Weatherill report before that, at Maple Leaf.
I mean, there isn't a day that goes by, Minister, that I don't look at news reports about people suffering from E. coli out there. The public are becoming the canaries in the gold mine.
This stuff has to be stopped before it reaches the public. Yet you're coming before us, with further cuts to biosecurity and the CFIA—
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
You're misleading Canadians by saying there are cuts to biosecurity.
Conservative
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
But I don't have the full picture. You're telling me that we'll get it later. We need to know now that—
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
That's the nature of estimates. You do an accounting system that puts down exactly what you have control of at this point. That's the main estimates. Then we add to that with the supplementaries. We're also talking about the supplementary (C) here today. That's the nature of the process here in the government.
So for you to say that Canadians are the canaries in the gold mine is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Valeriote. Of the 11 million or so food-borne illnesses in this country, a very minor portion—a very minor portion—comes out of the processing side. A lot of it is done right there on the kitchen counter, the restaurant counter, those types of things, in terms of how you handle and prepare your food.
Certainly we take all of those events seriously. I would never apologize for CFIA and Agriculture Canada and this government doing their due diligence: regardless of the size of the recall, we do what's needed to be done.
You criticize me roundly in question period for not doing enough, and now you criticize me for doing too much. I think that's hypocritical.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
No, no, no, you're not doing too much at all. I'd never accuse you of that, believe me.
My concern here is that you've increased by $41 million in your estimates an amount for trade and market development. I appreciate that we need trade and market development, but I propose to you that it is at the expense of food safety and providing the proper resources that CFIA needs—
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
No, not at all; not at all. We're able to quantify the numbers on market access and so on because it's a federal-only program. When you talk about biosecurity, we're talking about a 60% investment from the federal government, 40% from the provinces and territories.
I can't put down a number that I don't have yet, Mr. Valeriote.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, and your staff, for being here this morning.
You know, I have to commend you, Minister; you're always willing to show up in front of this committee, and when you're here, you're not scared to answer any questions. You tackle everything head-on, and I really appreciate you for that. It just shows you how well you know your files.
Minister, I have two areas that I want to go into. One is to talk about the current Canadian status of the farm economy, and the other one is about the CFIA, perhaps to help you explain to Mr. Valeriote exactly how the estimates and the supplementaries work so that he can maybe get a better idea of how this actually works.
When I go back to my riding, one thing that constituents know is that this government is focused on jobs, long-term growth, the Canadian economy, and long-term prosperity. They see that in our policies.
An example of one of the policies is the marketing freedom policy we did to allow farmers to sell their wheat and barley outside the Canadian Wheat Board, and what that policy did for returns for farmers in the grain belt.
One thing I'm hearing from my constituents, and reading in the papers, is that we have breaking records when it comes to profits. Agriculture is on a very firm foundation for future success.
Can you just give us an update on exactly how the farm economy is doing and on where you see it heading?
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Agriculture in Canada continues to be a major driver of our economy. Some 8% of our GDP is agriculture related—one in eight jobs—so it's very significant. That's why we take it seriously and continue to make investments, strategic investments that will help build the sector and help it build itself. Marketing is the answer.
Net cash income last year, as I said in my opening remarks, was over $13 billion and was up significantly. It's setting a record in 2012, and 2013 looks good as well. We're assessing other crops around the world and so on.
The biggest thing to me, though, was that you always hear how it was great for incomes to go up, but expenses went nuts and took away all of that. The numbers actually show us that as incomes went up 12%, costs, or inputs, went up 3%. There's still a good margin of 9% there. That's very positive when it comes to allowing producers to have access to the market.
You've made mention of the changes to the old Canadian Wheat Board. We've seen significant changes in western Canada. We've had announcements of some value-added. One of them's on hold right now, but I understand that it's going to move ahead here in the next months and so on. That's good.
That said, there's always more work to be done. I continue to have meetings with the CWB as they work out a system that will take them into the private sector. It looks extremely good. They've had a number of people court them. Looking at the Rolodex they have internationally; they may not be handling the same amount of money in the pools, but they've been able to sell two boatloads of canola to a market in Japan that we had never had before. They're flexing their muscles and experiencing some freedom in allowing them to do different things as well.
It's great news for western Canada and it's great news for Canada overall that we have access to growing and emerging markets in the Asia-Pacific area. We look with envy at the hundreds of million of people in Europe who have the capacity to buy the quality and consistency of supply that Canadians produce. The more people you have bidding on your product, the better off you're going to be.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
The better it is: exactly.
In part, my second question is in regard to the CFIA.
Those are good points you made there. I know that for the mood on the prairies, if we look at 2005 and the mood then, and then look at it today, what a difference.
Going after the CFIA, we've done some modernization in the food safety system with the Safe Food for Canadians Act. Maybe you'd like to summarize the initiatives our government has undertaken to make food safer for Canadians, so that Mr. Valeriote could be comfortable with all the changes we've made.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Sure. I know that Mr. Valeriote thinks I politicize it, so I'll actually turn to our vice-president of policy and programs, Mr. Mayers, to give him a bit of a rundown.
If you could, Paul...?
Paul Mayers Associate Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Certainly. Thank you, Minister.
The Safe Food for Canadians Act is an incredibly important advancement from a food safety perspective in Canada. What that has done is provide the agency with modern authorities to address issues in terms of the safety of food.
For example, as the minister was noting, it is providing specific authority in the area of food traceability, allowing us to strengthen our ability to identify and track foods through the system and respond quickly when issues arise. The Safe Food for Canadians Act presents an opportunity to move to an outcome-based approach to how we regulate, which will enhance the responsiveness of the regulatory system.
One of the challenges, of course, that a prescriptive regulatory framework presents is that it's bound in time with the science you have when you write that prescriptive set of rules. By shifting to an outcomes focus in terms of regulations, it means that we can be quickly responsive to emerging science. The Safe Food for Canadians Act now gives us that opportunity.
In seizing that opportunity, what the agency is very much seized with at present is the elaboration of the regulatory framework that will allow the Safe Food for Canadians Act to come into force. We will be working aggressively in the coming months, in consultation with the stakeholders, to elaborate that regulatory framework and to move forward in bringing the Safe Food for Canadians Act into force. We're backstopping that with the work we've been doing and the investment the government has made in an improved food inspection system.
The combination of those two things, we believe, will position us extremely well to have a modern, efficient, and effective food safety system that advances what is already recognized to be among the best food safety systems in the world.
Thank you.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you for being here today to talk to us about the supplementary estimates (C). I have several questions. So I am going to ask them quickly, and if you do not have the time to answer them, I would like a reply in writing.
There are a number of pork producers in my riding. I have been fortunate enough to meet them. I know that you know that the industry has difficulty from time to time. I was a little surprised to see that, in the supplementary estimates (C), there is so little support in terms of an assistance program. The amount I saw was $404,500. How did you arrive at that amount? Is it enough to help them?
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Not at all. That's not really the number that will be at the end of the day. All of the BRM suite of programs, the business risk suite of programs, are demand driven so when there's no demand for next year yet, there's no money being triggered. Certainly we have the capacity under AgriStability, AgriRecovery, AgriInvest, and AgriInsurance to step up and address whatever is needed.
I had the great opportunity to meet with your pork sector as well, in early January I believe it was, and I met the new Minister of Agriculture, François Gendron. We worked with the pork sector of the roughly 14,000 or 15,000 pork producers in Quebec. Some 461 are facing extraordinary difficult circumstances. We're working with them on a case-by-case basis to extend the capacity of the emergency advance, to make sure they have the cashflow, that they have the capacity to maintain their operations and begin to grow again.
The fourth quarter of 2012 was much better. The beginning of the year was good, the centre was not so good, and the last quarter was better; and 2013 is looking much better already.
A major change for Quebec will be access back to the American market with country of origin label changes coming.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you very much.
I want to go back to the changes in container sizes. The decision to deregulate container sizes has recently raised a lot of opposition among food producers all over the country. Did you do specific market impact studies? Can you talk to us about the expected impact? Was there any documentation? Why was the decision made?
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
There is diversity within the processing sector. Some in the industry want to move away from regulated container sizes and look to export. Others want to maintain that capacity, and we have the best of both worlds.
We've had some significant discussions with all of the processing sectors that are viewing these container sizes in a positive or a negative way. We continue to work with them on a case-by-case basis. For those that want to maintain the regulations, we will do that. For those that want to expand beyond the regulations, we will do that as well.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Was there a report?
Was there consultation? Was there an impact report done for this?
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
There have been a number of impact reports done. I think the last—
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Sure. I can give you what we have. The last very substantive one was done in 2005. The Liberal Government did one and then backed away from the issue. We continue to work with industry. It's a five-year program, five-year phase-in, should they want to do it. If they don't want to do it, then we maintain the status quo.
We have been saying that to a lot of the processors across Canada. There have been some arguments made by people not in the loop as to how bad this could be, but I can assure you that for those who wish to maintain the container sizes under the regulations with the ministerial exemptions—some want the best of both worlds—we still have that capacity.
