Agriculture Committee on June 13th, 2016

[Greg Meredith]

Mr. Chair, I could come back to the committee with a contact on organic certification.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Could you? That would be good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Meredith, and thank you, Mr. Peschisolido.

Now we'll move to Mr. Longfield, for the second round, for six minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Meredith, for coming back, and Mr. Goldstein for being here as well.

I'm really interested in the emerging areas, and particularly looking at the policies around AgriInvest and AgriInnovation. I'm thinking of value-added and food processing. In Ontario, the premier has made a lot of effort towards improving food processing.

I'm wondering whether that expands in a new program that might go national and whether that's something we should be looking at considering.

[Greg Meredith]

I think I mentioned in my remarks that the governments at both the federal and provincial levels are ascribing a higher priority to food processing.

There are a couple or three issues that are really quite central to that. One is that it is higher value-added, so it's capturing more of the production value for Canadians and Canadian producers and processors. That's important.

The processing sector in Canada is a very substantial buyer of Canadian primary productions. Particularly in areas where a big anchor firm is directly tied to growing capacity—for instance, we would have heard about the Leamington challenges with tomatoes and Heinz—in those situations, the health of the processing sector is directly correlated with a healthy primary sector. I believe that Canadian processing is the purchaser of about 40% of what we grow, so that's important.

The third issue, I think, is employment. The food processing sector across the country is the largest manufacturing employer. In those cases, the provinces are very interested in making sure that the food processing sector remains healthy.

All governments are considering this as a priority, and going into the next framework anything that the committee can provide in the way of advice and insight, I think governments would welcome.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

We have Cargill in Guelph. You've just outlined one of their challenges is personnel. OMAFRA is trying to help with HQP programs with the University of Guelph to try to solve some of that, but coordination is one of the challenges.

Talking about coordination, I saw a presentation that the University of Guelph has just started, a partnership with SOSCIP, where IBM is a partner to try to build a data-sharing network throughout universities, but also with industry. Data and agriculture don't always go in the same sentence, but in the new policy framework would something like data be considered in connecting agriculture policy with economic opportunities?

[Greg Meredith]

You've hit a very rich vein of investigation. When my colleague talked about the efforts at the provincial level to boost the profile of agriculture as an attractive career for youth, one of the things they're doing is trying to lay out just how technologically advanced and capital intensive the sector is.

When you talk about big data, Canada is a leader in precision agriculture because of the size of our farms and the challenges we face. The country is adopting new technologies at a very quick pace: telemetry for weather, for soil conditions, remote sensing of all types, and remote guidance of all types. Technology and data that goes with technology for assessing a farm condition, the progress of a crop or what have you, are all very critical to the sector.

The challenge that you mentioned, and I think you used the acronym HQP, which stands for highly qualified personnel. We're competing in the ag business with all the STEM sciences: science, technology, engineering, and math. We need those people involved in agriculture as well. I'll give you an example where biometrics and big data are quite critical and it's the area of genomics, the study of DNA and performance of a system at the genomic level.

Agriculture is a leader in taking up genomic technologies and applying them to plant and crop improvement, but that process generates enormous amounts of data. Biometric experts are in great demand across the health and other sectors that are absorbing genomic capacity. Agriculture is one of the leaders there, but it's not always the first sector that's thought of when you think of an advanced degree in bioengineering or in biometrics.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Right, and Guelph has the biodiversity institute where one of the central pieces they're working on is biogenetics.

I only have 50 seconds left, and I'm thinking of the climate change impacts where markets in the United States that have traditionally been using corn due to climate change are no longer going to be producing corn. Parts of Canada that have never produced corn may start being able to produce corn with the extended growing season, possibly out west. Climate change shifting on the market, is that part of this study or is that outside the scope of the next agricultural policy?

[Andrew Goldstein]

With innovation being a key component of the current framework, we expect it to continue to be important. That's all part of the work that our scientists working with the industry do, looking for where the new opportunities and the new risks of production are going to be, which comes in large part from climate change as well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Shipley, you have six minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much again for coming as our witnesses. Has there been discussion around the 60:40 ratio and a change?

[Greg Meredith]

No.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you for that.

Another thing is the concern around caps. For example, with regard to AgriInvest, I don't know if it was changed, but it was 1% of the eligible net sales, I think, to a maximum of $15,000 or something. That's something that has come up before. As farms are growing in size and in the value of what they produce, should there be something that would be more meaningful to them? I also want to say I hear from some very large farmers who say it shouldn't be built around them. Farmers make decisions on the size of farms as businesses, so if you have a guy farming 10,000 acres with 10,000 head of beef cattle, it's likely not the best thing to develop the policy framework around that individual.

I will leave that as a comment. Mostly I have comments that I've heard.

From what I hear, non-BRM programs are going to be part of this policy framework, which will drive the agriculture industry forward, rather than the BRM programs. I think that's significant, and I'm hearing that we shouldn't give up and we should continue to make sure that we support this industry in its research, technology, and innovation funding.

One thing that was very significant, and we can talk about the definition, was the clustered funding and how that worked, and bringing partnerships into it.

Let me just tell you why I say some of these things about innovation. There is a farm not too far from us. It's not a small family farm. They milk likely between 600 and 700 cows. They average close to 45 kilograms per day, which is about 100 pounds a day. They don't use standard technology. They work with universities. When we hear we have to stay away from the factory farms, whether it's for beef, dairy, or crops, those with some resources are actually leading in that technology and the engineering and the research. We need to come alongside those, because we won't have the smaller guys getting some of the benefits that they have to create the production levels we're seeing in crops, beef, or dairy.

If these guys who have the resources don't take the lead, those smaller ones won't be able to. The smaller ones will benefit from these.

I'll just leave that as another comment based on what I'm hearing. I'm just transferring some information. That's what I continue to hear from the folks: don't stop that part of it because that's what builds our industry; we need the BRM when the wheels fall off; we need this to consistently be there for us.

In the soil and crop area, because of those organizations, for example, they do a lot of research on the ground and the farm situation to make sure they will continue to have the resources they have.

You talked about the production increases, and I can sort of relate to a couple of them. When I was growing up, if you grew 65 bushels of corn, you were doing pretty well. Now, if you don't grow 200, in my area, you're looking at a number of factors. You measure that production.

Is there a measurement to break away on conventional farming and, for example, organic farming in terms of how those production levels have increased, and is there a comparative similarity between those increases in production? Do you know if those are tracked?

[Greg Meredith]

Yes. Particularly our insurance colleagues at the provincial level pay very close attention to yield, because it's the basis for setting premiums and making payouts. I would say that yields are going up significantly more in crops where there is some advanced technology, for example, in canola, soy, and corn. We're looking at a lot more, as another member just mentioned, cold-weather corn, which is almost all GE based, genetically engineered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Meredith. We'll have to move to the next speaker.

Mr. Breton, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations which I listened to attentively.

You mentioned an expected increase in the demand for agri-food products in the coming years. My riding of Shefford, Quebec, is 80% agricultural. There are dairy, pork, fruit, poultry and egg producers. I speak with them regularly about the challenges they are facing. One of their challenges involves productivity, which you also mentioned in your presentation. These people want to increase their productivity and do more with fewer resources. It is a business for them. They want to make more money while also responding to market demand.

The agri-innovation and agri-competitiveness programs are strategic initiatives that are directed specifically to them and that are very important to them. They strive to invest more in their business in order to increase production capacity.

Can you reassure us that these programs, among others, will be part of the Growing Forward 3 strategic framework in the coming years? On behalf of the farmers I represent, I suggest that these programs be expanded since they are extremely important to them. These programs enable farmers to stay current and to be more productive and competitive as compared to other partners in the world.

I would like to hear your comments on that.

[Greg Meredith]

Thank you for the question.

I guess I could only agree with your observations about the importance of these programs in providing a competitive base for our growers. The challenge, I think, for those kinds of investments is exactly where do governments put money? Let me give you an example.

There are the programs you mentioned—AgriCompetitiveness, AgriInnovation—and I'd add AgriMarketing. There are programs that could help the producer or producer organization market product both in Canada and abroad. There are programs that would partner producer groups with research performers to look at pest resistance, disease resistance, issues such as the delivery of nutrients in a way that directly targets when the nutrient is needed and where, so that you avoid waste and you avoid runoff. Then there are investments in variety development that could target a consumer-preferred trait or higher yields.

The challenge is for government not to make a decision about keeping those programs, because I think most governments, in fact, I can say with some confidence all governments, that we're talking to at my level are certainly very supportive of that kind of programming. The challenge that governments face is where do we invest, and as I mentioned in my remarks, where is that last dollar of investment going to be of greatest value? That's where additional feedback through the committee or directly from producers and producer groups and food processors can be most helpful.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

At this point, I'd like to make a personal observation.

I am strongly in favour of increasing investments in these two programs as regards research and development and innovation, in order to increase production capacity.

We have not yet talked about a national food policy today. How would such a policy help establish the new Growing Forward 3 strategic framework?

[Greg Meredith]

Members will be aware that in my minister's mandate letter he's been given the task of developing a national food policy. We see that as very aligned with the economic driver for Growing Forward 2 and the next policy framework.

I would say, though, that a food policy can be much more encompassing than the primary agriculture side of the equation. Those countries and organizations that are looking at food policies incorporate issues like environmental sustainability, like chronic disease and/or nutritional benefits and health benefits of food strategies. They look at food systems that will be productive and profitable but sustainable over the long run, and responsive to consumers who, as my colleague mentioned earlier, are becoming more interested in the provenance of their food.

The challenge, I think, with a national food policy is that almost inevitably it will touch on areas where it's not a federal jurisdiction. There will be municipal involvement on a procurement strategy, or on where to regulate growing opportunities. There will be provincial involvement in a very significant way. You've seen other provinces coming up with food strategies that scope out, within their jurisdiction, some fairly sophisticated approaches to food.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We're out of time.

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

This wraps up our hour of witnesses.

Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Meredith, thank you both once again for sharing your knowledge and expertise with regard to the next strategic framework.

We will take a couple of minutes to get ready for the business section of our meeting, which will be held in camera.

We will take a two-minute break.

The remainder of the meeting will be in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera.]