Evidence of meeting #59 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farmers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Pierre Corriveau Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Yes. In the main estimates, the total before you, which has to be voted on, is about $943 million. Of that amount, the envelope for Growing Forward 2 is about $450 million, or about 48% of the budget that has to be voted on here. You can see some parts of it in more detail on page II-48 of the main estimates.
For example, in innovation, we anticipate an expenditure of about $100.1 million for Growing Forward 2. That gives you an overall idea. It is a significant part of the department's budget.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Chair, before we move on, does that answer the question?
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for coming today to committee.
As you know, vote 1 in the main estimates is operating expenses for the department at $548 million. I would suggest that's a lot of money for all of us in this room, but it's toward a good cause, I would suggest, in your ministry to back up Canadian farmers, to back up our egg and food supply for Canada. As part of that, it's in support of the advance payments program, as you know. I'll ask a question about that following this.
I also wanted to talk about the fact we've passed various pieces of legislation that have affected the agriculture sector. As you know, Bill C-18 has been a positive effect, just recently receiving royal assent—again, another step, I think, from our government that we support the agriculture industry and farmers in Canada.
I have two questions, Minister. Can you please inform the committee how this legislation will assist farmers by reducing administrative burden and cost to producers and provide greater flexibility in repayment options, and simplify the delivery and ease of access to the advance payments program?
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
The whole thing comes down to red tape and regulation. For all of us having run businesses and farms, the last thing you want to do is come in at 10 o'clock at night and start doing paperwork that's going to take you a couple of hours, when you've already put in your 12- or 14-hour day.
We've done an assessment of all of that. We don't deliver the actual program. It's done through third parties that do that. We are now instructing them to now offer other ways of repayment. Let's say I take a cash advance on my canola and I decide I'm not selling that. It used to be that you had to sell that in order to make your repayment. Now you can actually sell another commodity. You might see the price going up on canola. You can actually hold it now and sell your wheat, your barley, or something else, which you never could do before. Multiple years in one application; on the farm everybody is working on rotations now of three to five years so that, barring weather-related problems, you know exactly what you're going to need as you move out there. Livestock is now going to be covered, and things like that, which was never done before.
We're trying to make it as user friendly and as operationally easy as we possibly can. You can go to one administrator now for everything, as opposed to picking and choosing who you are going to apply through.
Did I miss anything there, guys?
Greg, are there any other points?
Greg Meredith Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
No. I think you've covered it off, Minister.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
We met with 4-H in the other room, just before this meeting. We can see the future of what our farmers are going to be for Canada ,and it's nice to have programs that are actually going to help those future farmers do their job and do it more effectively.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Sure. There was some talk as we consulted—we broadly consult with industry before we come forward with these programs, as well as our provincial partners—about doubling the program. One group, the canola growers, basically, wanted it. They're the administrators, so of course they would like to have more money to administer, and so would I. At the end of the day, 98% of farmers are still well served within the $100,000 interest-free and the $400,000 cap. To double it would have really only reflected about 2%, so it wasn't worth making those changes at this point. But it's something we'll continue to consider.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Yes, certainly. Thank you, Minister, for all your efforts.
You've been talking about the Wheat Board. We're seeing it in its last transition to being self-sustaining and part of a broader group of the world market, as we call it, and giving access to Canadian farmers. I've heard positive comments from the B.C. piece, where I'm from. I want to commend the ministry for making that happen and seeing that our farmers are well handled.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
We just followed through on exactly what our campaign said: we would have market freedom for western Canadian farmers as well as a strong, viable Wheat Board. We see that happening now with their commercialization, privatization, partnership—whatever you want to call it—with G3.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you very much.
Welcome back, Mr. Atamanenko. I'll turn it over to you for five minutes, please.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you very much, Chair. It's nice to be back at ag committee. It has been a little while.
Before I start, Minister, I would like to say this is probably my last time here. I know that you and I have enjoyed a respectful working relationship over the years, and I'd like to thank you for that.
My questions probably won't be any surprise to you. We do differ on certain issues—
Conservative
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'd like to pursue what Francine was talking about in regard to supply management. Your government has committed to protecting supply management. I thank you for that.
We have seen, however, roughly 17,000 tonnes of concessions to European cheese coming into Canada. You're saying there will be compensation, but we know that now our farmers will be competing with subsidized farmers in Europe.
The TPP is coming up. There's tremendous pressure, as we all know, from New Zealand and other countries, the United States, to not do away with supply management but maybe for more concessions. My understanding is that there would be more compensation, but I'd like to get a commitment from you that we won't be doing this, we won't be offering any more concessions, that you're committed to protecting supply management as is, that it's not costing the taxpayer anything, that we don't need to make concessions to New Zealand or other countries. They're all interested in protecting their own interests, so I'd simply like a commitment from you to do that.
The second topic is also obviously no surprise to you. We have the Arctic Apple, we have alfalfa, which have basically been approved but have not yet been released into the environment. There is concern from farmers that this could damage them economically. We know that Argentina has certain rules that look at the economic impact before introducing new GMO varieties.
Would you be willing to have, for example, a moratorium on these two commodities prior to allowing their release? We've seen concern that there could be export markets for our alfalfa pellets touched, the organic industry. We've seen some contamination already across the border, and we know that the B.C. fruit growers are very concerned, as are organic producers, about the apple.
I'd like to get your comments and some commitment from you to ensure that our farmers are protected as we move into this new GMO area.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Sure. Those are both good questions.
We've been unequivocal, all parties. We've passed unanimous motions and so on to make sure that our supply management sector continues to exist in Canada and is vibrant and healthy. As a government we take that very seriously in negotiations.
I've had the good fortune to be involved at those tables with the European Union, and to a certain extent the TPP as well, and I can tell you that this government is unequivocal in our support for SM.
At the end of the day we have to look at trade values that are balanced. Of course, we have huge trade-reliant sectors in this country as well. We look at it in a holistic way, but at the same time with the eye on supply management to keep it as workable as we absolutely can.
We've proven that with the European Union. The 17,000 tonnes of cheese you're talking about represents some 3% to 3.5% of domestic consumption. In the year or so since we've had that announcement we've seen domestic consumption starting to rise. By the time that's fully implemented, of course, domestic consumption will be replacing the cheese that's coming in.
The unknown, and what cheese producers are concerned about, is what the breakdown will be. If it's all high-end cheese, it's different. If it all comes in at Christmas, it's different. There are ways to mitigate the impact of it coming all at once. There are variations of what qualities and quantities of cheeses come at different times. Those will be worked out as the importers and exporters move forward on that.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Sorry, Minister, could I interrupt you for a second?
Would it not be possible to say, that's it, we're not doing anything? Why work on all these different statistics and figure out compensation and all that? Just say no. That's it. Supply management exists. It has served our people well. It doesn't cost the taxpayers a cent. Look, we have lots of aces in the hole when we are negotiating. We have all sorts of commodities. We have strength. Just say, that's it, no more concessions. We are not going to do this in TPP.
Could we not do that as a government?
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I think you can do anything you want as a government. At the end of the day, are you shooting yourself in the foot? You would have to analyze that over the coming years.
There is a growing sector within supply management that also recognized they built themselves a glass ceiling when it comes to expansion. Certainly the federal government is not in charge of the quota, quota value, quota allocations, and all those things. This is done at the provincial level, so there is a partnership in that regard.
The federal government is in place to make sure there are tariff walls that can't be breached. Right now, with the dollar where it is, of course, it is easier to make sure those tariff walls are strong enough that when the dollar is at par it does make it more difficult, and we've done that quite successfully. We've had some of the importers and exporters look for gaps and exploit them, and we as a government have put our finger in the dike as we see those types of things happening. We will continue to do that because they are basically cheating the system, gaming the system a little bit.
At the end of the day, even a growing sector within the SM system itself is saying “For me to get larger and to have the economies of scale I need, I need to be able to trade interprovincially, and I need to look at some export market as well.”
I had this discussion with Tim Groser, New Zealand's trade minister. Our SM system is not a zero-sum game or a closed shop. New Zealand has over $100 million a year, on average, of dairy access to Canada. We do this further processing, and so on, to keep our processing sector whole.
There is a whole new game plan under way, a whole new way of looking at things between the producers themselves and the processors. We saw that when the producers identified that to address the pizza kit issue, they needed to have a world-price mozzarella—and they have done that, working with processors and so forth to deliver that good.
It's like all of agriculture. There is evolution and things moving forward. To say that we are just going to close the door would actually be doing a disservice. Everybody needs to look at all the options that are out there. We continue to do that, keeping in mind that our SM system is special and is working well.
Every country has defensive and offensive positions. That is what makes trade negotiations interesting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you very much, Minister.
I hate to cut you off, but the bells are going.
We have two more rounds of five minutes to go. I would ask the committee that we finish those and then we break. We are close to the House. Does that meet everybody's agreement?
Great. Thank you.
Mr. Payne, you have five minutes, please.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for coming, along with your officials.
I think back to the days when we talked about the Canadian Wheat Board and I had a few farmers come into my office who were highly upset. Today I don't have any farmers coming in who are upset. They have smiles on their faces. They can sell whatever they want. They are pretty happy folks because they are getting way more money than they used to get.
Minister, you talked about the international trade agreements that we have put in place. I have ranchers and pork producers all very happy with those agreements, so I just wanted to pass that on.
Certainly, I do hear from the supply management folks. They are encouraged that we are continuing to make sure this is within our scope, and we want to keep that as part of it.
Minister, you are probably aware that we are just wrapping up a report and study over the last couple of months on international trade barriers. We have heard from quite a number of witnesses about some of the difficulties with the impact of trade barriers between provinces. It was interesting because some of the organizations didn't want to point fingers at one group or another, one province or another, so that makes it much more difficult to try to get that.
I know your ministry certainly wants to grow our Canadian agricultural industry. I am wondering if you have any thoughts on what we might be doing to help move product between provinces and get rid of some of these barriers. That would certainly be helpful.
