Evidence of meeting #26 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Seed technology is very important. In terms of public trust, a lot of organizations don't think we should be touching seed technology. Let's try to put it nicely.
But seed technology has been very important in productivity on the farms and developing seeds that will grow under drought conditions, increase yields, and improve quality.
How do we fund that through the federal government? Is it all through the agricultural policy framework or do we do it any other way that I might not know about?
9:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada
Obviously, there are public-private partnerships as well.
9:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada
As far as I know they are.
I think when you talk about Canadians and their mistrust around developing new seed technologies, we forget we have an enormous bank of heritage seeds. We've haven't lost that either.
We can still go back to that.
9:55 a.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
I'll comment on the innovation side very quickly.
I mentioned in my presentation about making sure that the application process is very transparent. I think one of the complaints we heard over and over was you put in an application and then the criteria for the application seemed to change. The timelines would change. It was like trying to get your hand around a bowl of jelly. Particularly for organizations that are applying for funding, set the criteria. Set the in-kind standards in place, and have a process that's clearly defined as to how you do the application.
On the farmers' side for innovation, I think you need to rely on local delivery agents in the Ontario Soil and Crop Association. You almost have to have feet on the ground to make sure that those programs are delivered and keep them moving and streamlined.
One of the things you mentioned at the start of your question was investing in processing. I think one of the things that we need to look at though, if we're going to invest in processing, is that we solve some of the issues around labour as well. If we don't solve some of those labour issues, we're not going to make those investments in the processing sector to capitalize on them.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Bonnett.
Thank you, Mr. Longfield.
Mr. Anderson, you have five minutes.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We've been talking a little bit about research. I'd like to follow up on that.
Ms. Cook, this may be most directed to you. We've been paying a one dollar a tonne check-off in western Canada for the last few years, and 50 cents or 52 cents of that has gone to local commissions in the provinces, while 30 cents has gone to the Western Grains Research Foundation, and then three cents to CIGI.
It has accumulated to $100 million now, so we have a significant amount of money in western Canada to go into ag research. What do you see as the future of that fund? Is it being spent effectively? Right now it seems that it's being allowed to accumulate without a lot of money going directly into research, but there is some transitioning happening over the next year with that fund as well, back to the provincial commissions.
Do you have any thoughts on how that might be best spent by way of research for western Canadian grain farmers?
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada
It would be hard for me to comment on that, given that we're national and our provincial members have views on this question. I would just suggest that as we're again looking at a potential new carbon tax and at requirements over the next five years to increase this levy, farmers, as I mentioned earlier, are going to need help to find any more efficiency improvements that they can make to reduce emissions. Because of low till technology, there isn't a lot more to be done in terms of sequestration, and as you know, farmers are reliant on nitrogen fertilizer, which comes via natural gas, so the potential to get any further efficiencies in carbon emissions is going to be very difficult, and the industry is going to need help with it.
But again, this is not an official position. I'm just suggesting that those funds may be used for that type of research.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think the intent was that it would hopefully be going into seed research and those kinds of things, but I guess this is a broader application of that.
Mr. Bonnett, maybe you can talk a little bit about that partnership, farmers are paying a checkoff, and government is putting money into research stations and those kinds of things—that kind of research. What do you think the balance is there? I think farmers are willing to assume their responsibility.
9:55 a.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
You talk about the balance. It depends on the type of commodity. Those producing a fairly large-base commodity have a lot more ability to put money into investments in research and innovation than those producing a smaller commodity.
I think what was mentioned was taking a look at a funding model in which possibly the larger organizations would have a lower level of support. In some cases some of the smaller institutions might have to have up to 90% funding to move ahead with their research projects, just because of the size of the organization. An organization such as the Canadian Honey Council doesn't have a lot of money, but the work they do has a huge impact on all of agriculture. Taking a look at that partnership....
Again, I go back to making sure that the application processes are transparent and that timelines are followed. I think that's critical to making sure that organizations access those funds.
10 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
More priority areas have been thrown into this new APF planning, so do you expect that there is going to be more total money, or will it be less per section?
My political comment would be, do you expect that farmers are going to receive more money now that we're running these massive deficits so that the government has more to spend on Canadians? Do you think agriculture is actually going to get more money, or are you going to have less money in each of those pillars to try to sort out?
10 a.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
I would argue that agriculture should be viewed as a strategic investment. We heard Dominic Barton make a speech last week or the week before saying that agriculture is one of the few areas in which there is a possibility of economic growth.
As a businessman, if I see some area that has potential for growth and I see other areas that have less potential, I'm going to funnel some money over to that area that has potential. Let's not look at this as just a whittle-down exercise; let's take a look at it. If we make these strategic investments in agriculture and do some measurement, maybe we're going to actually grow the tax base for the federal and the provincial governments as we go ahead. I think that's the way we have to approach it.
10 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
In our area, such things as pulses and canola are two examples of things that have arisen from virtually nothing.
But actually, going back to the research funding, pulses have really made their success on check-offs that farmers have paid to do the research. Then they're able to keep those seeds in the public domain. That has always been a concern. If public money is being spent on seed, perhaps we should take a look at keeping it in the public domain, then, so that it's available.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
At this point we're a little bit stretched for time.
Ms. Moore, you have three minutes.
10 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We were speaking earlier about the importance of Internet access at home, but we often tend to forget about access to cellular communications. Many farmers have told me how much this had changed their activities. For example, if a farmer's tractor breaks down when he is in the middle of a field, he would be stuck there. Farmers who still don't have a cellular connection would have to walk across the whole field to return home and get another vehicle to find an employee. If they had a cellular connection, they could solve some problems in two or three minutes by getting an employee to come to them. It's the same thing when they need another person to help when animals are calving.
Do you think enough is being done to resolve the problem of access to a cellular connection in rural regions? How might cellular connectivity help farmers and producers?
10 a.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
I think the whole infrastructure investment in rural Canada has to be looked at: roads, bridges, Internet access, and cellphone access.
We've become a society now that is depending on these new technologies, but there's an inequity between urban communities and rural communities. I think it has to be a priority, although I wouldn't suggest that all of the investment for improving infrastructure such as Internet and cellphones should be coming out of the egg budget. I think there are other budgets within government departments that should be kicking in because that could be seen again as a tool for economic growth in rural Canada.
10 a.m.
Director, Egg Farmers of Canada
I'll speak to that too. I would agree with you 100%. Cell coverage is great. I can look on my phone right now. I have cameras in my barn, and it was growing forward 2 money that helped me get those. I also have my whole ventilation system, water, and everything on my phone so I can be at places like this while my son is at home taking care of the farm, and we can work together to make things work. So I think cell coverage is very important. If you have good cell coverage, you will have good data and Internet that comes with that to become more productive and also safer.
Regarding farmer safety, you talked about if we carry cellphones, and if I fall down or hurt myself in the back of the barn, and I'm working on my own as family farmers do, it's nice to have that cellphone to have that coverage. I know in the back of my barn I have no coverage. I have to go to the front to be able to phone anywhere. Those things do happen, and I can only yell so loud.
10 a.m.
Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada
I would also add that the use of social media by farmers is quite impressive, and it's very valuable. It's not just to chat, but they often exchange a lot of information—weather, events, whatever—on Twitter. They call it their coffee shop, so that's also a very important form of communication as well.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Ms. Cook.
I see some nervous people here. Do I have consent to adjourn at this stage? Are we good with one question for Liberals and one for Conservatives?
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Welcome, everyone. It was very informative, and thank you for this.
Mr. Bonnett, on the family farm I think you hit it right on talking about tax policy and succession planning. Can you outline some of the specific changes in tax policy that would help succession planning? It's not our bailiwick, but we can transfer it over to Finance.