Agriculture Committee on Feb. 26th, 2019

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, I asked for the committee's consent to discuss my motion. If I understood correctly, we decided by mutual agreement to wait until the end of the testimony to discuss it. Therefore, I reiterate my request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We are just beginning to discuss committee business.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Okay. In addition, the meeting continues in public.

I will formally move my motion.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Do I need to reread it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

No. Everyone has a copy.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity to visit Bas-Saint-Laurent a few times with my colleague Bernard Généreux, who represents many farmers and producers in that region.

The 2018 drought was the worst in 50 years. It followed the 2017 drought, which had also been quite horrible.

The problem is that, according to crop insurance rules, rainfall from the last days of the growing season is taken into account, and the calculation period can't be extended. That's exactly what happened in 2018: the rain came at the end of the growing season of the plants included in the calculation. Unfortunately, under normal rules—although there is nothing normal about nature—farmers were not eligible for a full payment for their 2018 losses.

Farmers had conversations with the La Financière agricole du Québec. Basically, all the stakeholders on the Quebec side recognize that certain technical details need to be modified, and they are prepared to make these modifications. However, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada would have said no. In discussions with farmers, the department acknowledged the problem and said it was willing to make changes for 2019, but it did not want to reconsider 2018. Yet it's 2018 that did poorly and that may force some producers to abandon their production. Action needs to be taken for 2018.

Everyone must come together to convince Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as well as all stakeholders reporting to it, to make the changes required for 2018 so that these people can receive the payments they're entitled to. Yes, they are entitled to payments because they pay insurance. These aren't subsidies. It's like paying for car insurance: when you have an accident, you expect the insurance company to cover the damage, even if you sometimes have to insist because the company doesn't want to recognize all the details. Lastly, when you take out insurance, you think you are properly insured and continue paying the premiums without fear as required. People do this because they don't have a choice, but they know that they will be covered in the event of a disaster.

Yet there was a disaster in the five regions mentioned. That's why it's important for the Minister to explain to us the reason for his refusal and for us to try to convince him at the same time to modify certain technical details for 2018.

Mr. Chair, I don't want to get into a long discussion. I think that, here, we are all very close to farmers. We understand their situation. I will leave it at that for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. MacGregor, you have the floor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I like where the motion is going. However, what I would say is, rather than making it specific to one province, it did affect a lot of producers in western Canada as well. This is not a flash in the pan. This is going to be the trend for the decades ahead. Agricultural producers are going to be facing longer periods without rain. It's going to affect how we raise livestock on the Prairies and how our crops get water. This is a long-term trend, and we've touched upon this in the previous study.

I would like to hear from the minister and, indeed, officials from the department on how well our programs are going to be able to withstand this long-term trend going into the future.

Maybe we could have just a friendly amendment to include other areas because—

[An hon. member]

—and other areas.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes.

I'm really interested to see how the crop insurance program performed but also how it will perform in the future, given the long-term trends we're facing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you. Are you making that an amendment?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

It is just a suggestion that maybe we expand it to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Okay.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Out of respect for my opposition colleagues, we said at the start of the meeting that we would allow this to be discussed, even though it is only a notice of motion. However, on our side, we won't be ready to render a decision until Thursday.

Perhaps you remember, Mr. Chair, that we had the opportunity last week to discuss committee business and that this motion was not raised.

That said, I must say that the motion as presented poses a problem for us, especially the idea of “refusal to accept”. I don't think that comment is accurate: I don't think there was refusal on the department's part.

I know my colleagues Mr. Poissant and Mr. Breton from Quebec have heard farmers' complaints. They are well aware of the drought problem, which didn't affect my riding, but I know that my colleagues fought very hard to ensure that there would be a response.

It's also important to remember that all these programs are negotiated with the provinces in advance. To receive funding, each of them must agree to all the criteria. That includes the crop insurance program. According to the department, that's the only drawback.

However, I can assure you that Mr. Poissant and Mr. Breton worked very hard. The members of the committee will vote on this motion, but we need to amend it. I should also remind members that we agreed that the committee would invite the Minister to appear as soon as possible.

If I may, I can work with Mr. Berthold to find a middle ground that would allow us to accept what he wants to propose to the committee. I think our committee can agree to find an answer that will benefit all parties concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I have to say that there was, indeed, a refusal, Mr. Drouin. I have seen the minister's letter indicating that he cannot effectively change the criteria and that we must therefore rely on the decision of La Financière agricole du Québec. In short, Quebec has already said yes. La Financière agricole du Québec said yes. Everyone agrees on the Quebec side. All that's missing is a response from the federal government.

I'm not up on all the details, but I know that the problem we have right now is that the deadline for insurance payments to producers is March 1. So it's urgent. They told us last week at a press conference that they couldn't wait two months. This needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.

I may be interested in knowing what the changes are, but I want to understand why the department refuses to apply them to 2018.

Mr. Drouin, what kind of amendment to the motion would you propose so that we can receive the Minister as quickly as possible?

Unfortunately, when my colleague Bernard Généreux asked the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Poissant, in the House, he responded with something that had nothing to do with the situation in Bas-Saint-Laurent. So I'm afraid that this question is being postponed too long, Mr. Drouin, and that no decision is being made.

I commend your open-mindedness, but I want to make sure that we are acting for the right reasons, for the producers. The goal is to convince Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to change its decision, no matter how. Whether it is by inviting the Minister to appear or by any other way, what matters is making the right decision in this case for all the people who have had to suffer this drought.

I'll come back to Mr. MacGregor's proposal. I think there is room for two meetings. How will we act in the future? Today's weather is no longer what it was when all these programs were created. In a given month, there may be 28 days without precipitation followed by two days of intense rainfall. If we only consider the precipitation received at the end of the month, there will have been the same amount of precipitation as the month before, but the precipitation for the month before will have been better distributed over the period. I think it is appropriate for the committee to look at this.

However, I am once again ready to move forward and discuss with you between now and Thursday, Mr. Drouin, to find a better wording. I hope that we will work in the right direction, that is, for the producers in these regions, including the ones proposed by Mr. MacGregor. I'm being given an opportunity, and I'm grabbing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Longfield, the floor is yours.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I don't think we're going to be arguing whether there are climate change effects because we understand from our side, definitely, that there are climate change effects that are going to be hitting the farms in random ways that will increase in frequency and in intensity. We have established some support mechanisms and we just renegotiated the deals with the provinces, but obviously, sometimes it isn't enough to respond to the change as quickly as it's happening.

I think it's a good notice of motion. I think it's worth looking at and discussing. We need to do a little bit of homework on our side on this. I think Mr. MacGregor has given us a bit of an expansion on scope, which I think is correct because it's not just the south shore of the St. Lawrence that's experiencing events. We've certainly seen them in British Columbia and across Canada as well. Let's take a look at this and bring it back up in committee business when we get there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

I look at the notice of motion, and I see that we're talking specifically about accepting the changes that would make the claims admissible for producers. I'm not sure whether Mr. MacGregor has a list of other places around the country that are in that same situation, but I think that this particular motion is trying to be precise in dealing with the issue that is happening in Quebec right now.

I'm not sure about expanding it. We do have a program that may have to be looked at. I'm not denying that, but I think this motion is pretty specific to that area in Quebec where the drought took place and where there didn't seem to be proper communication between the producers and the crop insurance program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Here's how I see things. If we make changes for 2018, they will apply everywhere, to everyone who faced the same very specific situation in 2018. It is actually a very specific case. I don't think Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is deciding to make changes just for the regions mentioned. If other regions have experienced the same situation, I don't see why they would be excluded. That's why I see no problem with mentioning that this applies to other sectors affected in 2018, if any.

There are currently five regions with very specific cases and supporting documents: Bas-Saint-Laurent, Chaudière-Appalaches, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Abitibi-Témiscamingue. These people have made claims and representations. As I mentioned earlier, La Financière agricole du Québec is ready to recognize the situation. We are told that the Government of Quebec is also prepared to do so. Only the Government of Canada must give its consent.

These people expect a lot from us. I think we will indeed focus on that. Just as we can't prevent someone who has rights from exercising them, I don't see why other people in the same situation shouldn't be entitled to compensation such as that to which people in the regions mentioned are entitled.

As I understand it, we are going to resume this debate on Thursday. So I agree to adjourn the debate on this motion and pick it up again on Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

So we are all agreed to resume the debate during the period set aside for committee business.

Are we all fine with that?

We will suspend the meeting before continuing in camera.

[The meeting continued in camera.]