Agriculture Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

[Andrew Goldstein]

Thank you for the question.

Again, we agree completely that innovation is one of the key drivers of the long-term success of the sector. In Growing Forward 2, at the federal level we've allocated almost $700 million over the five years towards science and innovation activities. That's a combination of some of the work we do internally with our scientists and innovation activities led by the industry, whether it's through our science clusters or individual projects.

The provinces are supporting innovation through Growing Forward 2 in the range of about $700 million to $800 million on top of that. A significant portion of the Growing Forward 2 funds are being used to support innovation.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

It's not always easy to assess the return. However, we can say how much was invested.

What is the level of satisfaction with the investments?

We're in a consultation period and we're reviewing the situation with all the partners and stakeholders. We'll surely hear more about the subject in the coming weeks and months. That said, investments have been made for a number of years already.

Based on what you've heard, what is the level of satisfaction with the innovation investment programs?

[Andrew Goldstein]

Overall, I think our stakeholders are very happy with the innovation programming. They really like the clusters program because it brings a range of partners together to collaborate in certain sectors. For example, there's a beef cluster and a dairy cluster. We hear very good things about that.

I think there are some challenges with the programs. I think one of the things they find is that funding on a five-year basis doesn't coincide with the timeframes on which research happens. Innovation research often takes a lot longer than a few years. I think the challenge they've been facing is that after they've been working on a cluster for a number of years, at the end of the five years they have to tail off their activities and wind them down, only to have to ramp them up again in the next framework. That happened from Growing Forward to Growing Forward 2. They're really concerned about their innovation activities and they're looking for that continuity of support from one framework to the next.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Earlier, Mr. Shipley raised the issue of risk management. We spoke about it very briefly. Can you tell us more about the consequences of natural disasters? It's extremely important for our producers. They don't know what can happen.

How can the program be improved? There are still many concerns. Our agricultural producers think many improvements can be made. Based on the comments provided, how can the risk management program be improved?

[Rosser Lloyd]

Natural disasters are obviously exactly what we want to make sure we protect our producers against. We have a number of programs that help do that.

First and foremost in the suite is the AgriInsurance program that provides insurance protection against lost production, which is largely what you see when you have a weather-related disaster.

We also have AgriStability, which sits on top of AgriInsurance and provides income protection. Should the producer have additional costs, AgriStability would come in and assist.

AgriInvest is also there if the producer needs fast cash. Those AgriInvest accounts can be accessed to pay the bills quickly during a disaster event.

Finally, we have the AgriRecovery framework, which is a framework that sets up a protocol for the provinces and ourselves to work together to put ad hoc initiatives in place that will address the specific costs associated with recovery.

We have a comprehensive suite in response to disasters. What are we hearing? Producers would like some greater clarity about when and how AgriRecovery would trigger, and again I'll come back to the earlier comments around AgriStability and say that there are some concerns with how far the producer needs to fall before that program will actually trigger.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

We'll give the floor to Ms. Brosseau for six minutes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome the new clerk. I look forward to working with him.

I also want to thank the witnesses for their presentations this morning.

I remember that, a year ago, during the election campaign, we spoke a great deal about agriculture and ways to improve Growing Forward 2 and the risk management programs. Whenever I meet with people in my constituency—stakeholder groups or interested parties—they remind me that the programs must be improved.

One thing that I think is really important to have is a very smooth transition between Growing Forward and this new framework. There seems to be a lot of disruption in funding, especially for long-term research, which creates challenges for our innovation programs.

As you know, researchers need stability and assurance that the projects are going to continue, and the administrators need reasonable reporting deadlines. Can you assure us that this will happen? What kind of provisions are in place?

[Andrew Goldstein]

That's a very good question. That seamless transition from one framework to the next is an objective that has been guiding our timeframes for the development of the next policy framework.

We hope that the minister's signing the multilateral agreement in July 2017 will be a key milestone for achieving that goal, because it will give us time to get programming in place. Then we'll have time to either start soliciting applications and start sending signals to stakeholders that the existing programs are going to continue or, if there are new programs, we can start to advertise them and solicit applications into those programs so that when we get to April 1, 2018, we're not starting from zero. We will already be in place so that we can have programming up and running, particularly on the innovation side of things, in those science clusters in particular. They are multi-million-dollar exercises, and they take time to put together.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I know the negotiations are in their infancy and we have the Calgary Statement, but we haven't talked about money. I'm going to ask the question. Do you have any kind of numbers you can give us, any kind of idea? Is it going to be about the same? Will it go up? Will it go down? In the last budget we didn't see any more money for agriculture, so I will just ask the question. I know I will not get an answer, but I have to do it anyway.

[Andrew Goldstein]

We're not able to answer that question at this time.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay.

As you know, enrolment in AgriStability has been going down. There were cuts in Growing Forward 2. There have been a lot of concerns that when a crisis hits any sector, the participation levels will be affected, and then they're going to have to ask for kind of ad hoc payments to avoid a collapse. I was wondering if we can get your comments around making AgriStability better.

I also want to know if Agriculture Canada does regular checkups to make sure that the programs are working well, if business risks and management programs are working well. If you do those checkups, are they transparent and are they accessible to us? I think it's important that we have that information. If there are things that need to be changed and made better in the programs, is that possible to do that halfway through, or is it only in every negotiation period that you can make substantive changes to programs?

[Rosser Lloyd]

Your first question was about what we are hearing with respect to how we can improve participation. We are really looking at it from two aspects: what are the producers' perceived benefits associated with the programs, and what is the burden associated with their participating? Those have to be in equilibrium in order for a producer to participate in the program.

From the benefit side of things, we are certainly hearing from producer organizations with respect to the trigger level. Is the trigger sufficiently high, such that it will cover a significant loss? We also introduced, last time, a limit on reference margin. You are going to hear about the reference margin limit when you talk to producers. How it works is not well understood, and we are certainly taking a look at that.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay.

[Rosser Lloyd]

From the burden perspective, we are looking at what it takes for a producer to actually apply to the program. They have to apply every year, and there is a fee associated with it. Are there things we can do to reduce that burden and thereby increase the participation?

Your second question was with respect to how we monitor and whether we monitor throughout.

Yes, we have a performance management framework, and one of the key things we look at is participation. Are our programs relevant as a risk management tool? We monitor that each year. We also manage the extent to which we are bringing producers back to their normal situation. Those are two key measures for us. We report those each year in the departmental performance report when we discuss AgriStability.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

How heavy it is sometimes is brought up a lot when I meet with farmers. You mentioned the paper, the bureaucracy. It's complicated to apply for these business risk management programs and to deal with them. It is something that we've heard about a lot.

How does the government intend to make these programs more accessible and make it easier for small farmers to work with them?

[Rosser Lloyd]

It's something we are looking at. What is the burden each year? AgriStability takes a lot of information. Do we need all that information? Are there ways we could do it in a simpler manner?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Brosseau.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to welcome the new clerk. I look forward to working with him.

Welcome as well to the witnesses.

I am trying to understand your perspective on the difference between what Growing Forward 2 was trying to achieve and what you can see from the Calgary Statement.

To give you an example, I am looking at the policy directions section within the policy framework of Growing Forward 2. We have “a competitive and innovative sector”, while we also have “innovation” within the Calgary Statement. We have “a sector that contributes to society’s priorities”, “enhance the safety and security of Canada’s food system”, and “promote environmentally responsible agriculture”. We can assume that this would fit into the “environmental sustainability and climate change” section in the Calgary Statement.

After that, it talks about the BRM programs. I am just trying to understand...what is the difference that you anticipate between Growing Forward 2 and the Calgary Statement? What are the early findings, the early statements that you've heard from various stakeholders within your department?

[Andrew Goldstein]

That's a very good question.

As you start to look through the past several frameworks, you see that certain elements are similar, such as innovation, markets, and trade. Those are key elements of success for the sector.

As we move on, we change our emphasis based on our analysis of the state of the sector. Food processing is an area that's raised in importance, as well as environment and climate change, for various reasons. There are government-wide commitments around that, and certainly among the sectors there is a renewed emphasis on the impact of climate change. Agriculture can be a key contributor in addressing climate change, through reducing GHG emissions but also through bioproducts and things like that. Also, the environment and climate change can have a big impact on the agriculture sector, depending on the weather, and we have seen these extreme weather events.

We see an evolution through each one of these things, and there are going to be quite a few changes. Even on innovation, we heard lots of comments about how we can make things better and be more deliberate with our investments to ensure that we are getting the highest rate of return and investing in the things that are really going to help the sector the most. Even within existing areas, we are always looking to make improvements.

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

Speaking of innovation, I know that agriculture is going to be a huge part of creating an innovation nation. How does the department measure that? Did you measure the impacts of your investments within Canada? How does that relate to the overall contribution of the innovation sector?

I think the OECD now places us 22nd. We've steadily lost placement, even though we talk a lot about innovation. I think we have to start doing a better job of delivering innovation. How does the department plan on measuring that specific impact? How did it do it in Growing Forward 2?

[Andrew Goldstein]

I think measuring the impact of innovation is a real challenge, because innovation happens over such long period of time. It almost happens in a matter of decades. It is hard to track the investments we made in Going Forward 2 directly to the impacts we're seeing.

That said, we've been doing innovation work and science work for a long time and we are starting to see the impacts. There are various studies that have been done that show that the rates of return of R and D in agriculture are quite high, and there are multiple impacts.

We started to do it through case studies. The canola industry is a $19-billion industry now, but if you go back two decades, there was no canola industry. Through investments in science and research at Agriculture Canada and other places, we are starting to see those impacts. We certainly try to measure globally, but we also look at case studies to show the impact.

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

Are you in constant discussion with all provinces on how to collaborate to ensure that there is no redundancy of services or programs at the provincial level?

[Andrew Goldstein]

Absolutely. That's actually a key element of the discussions we're having with provinces right now.

As I mentioned earlier, at Agriculture Canada we are investing significant amounts in innovation. The provinces are as well. We're looking at how we can better share information among different levels of government to ensure that we are coordinating, that we're not duplicating efforts, and that we have maximum impact, because we have limited funding. We want to make sure that our funding federally and provincially is having the greatest impact possible.