Agriculture Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone. Thank you for being here this morning.

With us this morning we have the Canadian Canola Growers Association, with Mr. Brett Halstead, president, and Ms. Catherine Scovil, director of government relations, and the Canola Council of Canada, with Patti Miller, president. I think we're also connected via videoconference with Mr. Casey Vander Ploeg.

Can you hear us, Mr. Vander Ploeg?

[Casey Vander Ploeg, Manager, Policy and Research, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Yes, I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Okay. We'll start with the Canadian Canola Growers Association and Mr. Brett Halstead for a 10-minute opening statement.

[Brett Halstead, President, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on this critical piece of agricultural policy.

The next agricultural policy framework sets the direction for agriculture policy, starting in March of 2018. This framework is important for farmers, who face challenges to manage evolving pest pressures and unpredictable weather patterns while continually providing high-quality safe food to Canadians and global customers.

My name is Brett Halstead. I am the president of the Canadian Canola Growers Association. I farm near Nokomis, Saskatchewan, about an hour and a half north of Regina, where I'm lucky enough to have three generations working and farming together. We grow grains and oilseeds and manage a beef cattle herd.

The CCGA is the national association of canola farmers, representing 43,000 growers from Ontario to B.C. on national and international issues, policies, and programs that affect their profitability. The CCGA is also the administrator of the cash advance payments program.

Canola is a major crop, generating nearly $8 billion in farm cash receipts in 2015. It's a major contributor to the Canadian economy, providing $19.3 billion in economic benefits and employing a quarter of a million people. The next agricultural policy framework will play an important role in our sector.

Today I'd like to focus on four priority areas. These are farm income safety nets or business risk management programs; science and innovation; environmental sustainability and climate change; and markets and trade. These areas have the greatest impact on farmers directly.

A fundamental pillar of the framework is the suite of business risk management programs. They provide important risk management tools for overcoming production challenges and market volatility. While farmers look first to the markets for their returns, there are many risks that are simply beyond their control, such as floods, weather variability, and market collapses.

As an illustration, today, farmers in central and northern Alberta and Saskatchewan are currently struggling to harvest their 2016 crop due to a wet fall and an early snowfall. This year was expected to be a record harvest, but nearly 4 million tonnes of canola are still on the ground, and that's over 20% of our projected harvest. Predictable, flexible business risk management programs provide the backstop to help farmers manage unforeseen losses.

As the next framework takes shape, it is essential that funding for BRM programs not be eroded at the expense of other framework priorities. If farmers are not able to remain in business and manage their risks, little else will matter. That is why we see funding for BRM programs as fundamental in the next policy framework.

Looking at the current programs specifically, farmers are generally satisfied with AgriInsurance and AgriInvest. These programs are well understood, easy to use and predictable. Participation rates in AgriInsurance are acceptable and reflect the fact that farmers see value in protecting against production losses. The program is predictable and well understood, with a simple application and trigger to it. It could have some improved yield and pricing information that would keep up with market trends, but in general it's good.

AgriInvest provides farmers with an opportunity to build funds and use those dollars when and where they see fit on the farm. This could help in low-return years as bridge funding where cash flow is tight between harvests.

That brings me to AgriStability. Of the core programs, it is AgriStability that is the most concerning. Changes made to AgriStability under Growing Forward 2 significantly reduced coverage to producers. This, coupled with a lack of predictability and a complex application form, has led to declining participation rates. As of 2013, only 36% of farmers saw enough value in this program, and that's dropped since then. That includes me; I have stepped out of the program. Low participation levels are the result, and many farmers may be exposed to market risks not covered by AgriInsurance.

Simply returning the program to previous levels may not be enough to address all these concerns. For that reason, CCGA recommends that a national safety net, a national committee of associations, be established to further explore the effectiveness of the current suite of programs and make recommendations on how to refine them in the next agricultural policy framework.

Beyond BRM programming, investment in research is also critical to helping farmers manage many of the risks they face on their farms. Long-term production risks, new insect populations, disease or weed species, or climate change can be managed through investment in research that helps farmers become more adaptable and resilient.

Since its development in the seventies, canola has grown to become the largest field crop in western Canada. Research and innovation was and continues to be a key driving force in that success. It ensures that canola farmers remain competitive in the global oilseed market and have the tools to respond to agronomic pressures and the challenges of production practices. To that end, the AgriInnovation program is working well. The research cluster approach brings the canola value chain together, ensures priorities are set collaboratively, and makes sure public funding is targeted to areas that matter most.

CCGA supports the continuation of this program post-March 2018. A seamless transition among the policy frameworks is important in ensuring the time invested and the research momentum are not lost.

Climate change presents a new and evolving risk. Weather events have become increasingly extreme and unpredictable in recent years. Changing weather patterns offer new opportunities to farmers. At the same time, unpredictable weather can ruin a crop. While our industry is investing in ways to address climate change and farmers are making changes to their practices, more research and assistance are required in this area.

Research into new agronomic and sustainable practices specific to soil types in ecozones will assist in making crops more resilient to weather events and farming practices more sustainable overall.

The government's recent announcement of a carbon-pricing policy will have an impact on farmers, and this should be considered in the design of the next agricultural policy framework. It presents both challenges and opportunities. On the opportunities side, Canadian farmers have already made significant gains in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions through low- and no-till systems. As a result, canola farmers play an important role in sequestering carbon in the soil, and this needs to be recognized in any system that's implemented.

Pricing carbon has the potential to significantly increase the costs of production for farmers, thereby reducing our global competitiveness. Depending on the design and implementation of a carbon tax, it would increase the price of farmers' largest inputs, such as fuel and fertilizer. It could also impact the cost of rail transportation and the cost structure of processing plants, both of which would result in additional costs being downloaded to farmers.

Farmers cannot pass along any of these increased costs, as they are price-takers in a global market. This is of particular concern given that canola is an export-dependent crop and we must compete with farmers who operate their business in an environment that will not have these additional costs. Consideration for how the government can help to ensure farmers remain competitive should be included in the next framework.

There is still work to be done to fully understand the impact that carbon-pricing policies will have on farmers in particular, as some jurisdictions do not have defined policies yet. Researching new best practices and investing in new environmental technology areas are where the next framework can focus. Farmers have a history of rapidly adapting to new technologies that have proven to soften their environmental footprint while protecting their profitability, and they will continue to do so as new technologies and new practices are discovered. Government can help speed up this process by investing in research that will identify these technologies.

Last, 90% of Canadian canola production is exported to over 50 countries. In 2015, exports of seed, oil, and meal generated $8.9 billion in sales. Continued access to existing markets and expansion of new market opportunities are critical priorities for canola farmers. The AgriMarketing program has been invaluable in helping the canola industry develop and implement strong marketing and promotion programs in priority regions. Growing Forward 2 funding also supports the market access secretariat. The secretariat provides an important service in resolving trade barriers as they arise and in promoting global solutions to prevent barriers—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Quickly, please, Mr. Halstead. We're past the 10 minutes.

You can do the conclusion. Thank you.

[Brett Halstead]

In conclusion, Canadian canola growers are very optimistic about the future of Canadian canola farmers and our ability to continue to contribute positively to the Canadian economy. Canadian agriculture should be viewed as a strategic investment for future growth.

The next APF has an important role to play in facilitating this by providing farmers with effective risk management tools and investing in research and innovation that will help farmers be resilient and globally competitive, while at the same time being on the leading edge of adopting environmentally and economically sustainable practices.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the priorities of canola farmers. We look forward to continued engagement on this critical piece of agriculture policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Halstead.

Ms. Miller, please, for 10 minutes. Thank you.

[Patti Miller, President, Canola Council of Canada]

Good morning, everyone, and thanks very much for the opportunity to share our recommendations around the agricultural policy framework.

I'd like to take just a second to talk about who the Canola Council is. We are a value chain organization. We represent Canadian canola producers through organizations such as the one Mr. Halstead represents, as well as the crop input suppliers and seed developers, the processors that crush canola into oil and meal, and the exporters who bring canola seed to our customers around the world.

Our industry has a plan to meet the world's growing appetite for healthier oils and protein. The plan is called “Keep it Coming 2025”. It's unique in the agriculture industry in that we have the entire value chain working together to have a strategic plan that's very specific and very measurable, similar to what companies do.

Our goal is to meet the growing demand for healthy oil and proteins through increased sustainable production and yield improvement in achieving 26 million metric tons by 2025. Just to give you a comparison, when we set out this plan, agriculture was producing around 15 million metric tons.

While our industry is working hard on achieving these goals, the government really has a key role to play. The agricultural policy framework is the cornerstone of how the Government of Canada facilitates growth and profitability in our sector.

I'd like to focus my comments around two recommendations, both of which have been touched on by Mr. Halstead, but maybe we'll go into a little more detail and give you some specific examples. The first is the need to continue the key priorities of Growing Forward 2 that are facilitating growth and prosperity. The second is to make sure that we're adequately funding both the existing priorities and the new priorities that the government is considering.

Our first recommendation is that the new policy framework continue the valuable programs supporting research, market development, and market access. I'd like to share with the committee how these priorities are driving innovation in our sector, as well as growth and profitability.

Let's look at innovation and research. These are two things that really define the story of canola.

Canola was developed in Canada from federally funded research in the 1970s. Since then, the private sector has picked up the ball in variety development and joint investment in research that has helped producers significantly improve their yields, increase their profitability, and reduce production risk from pests and other stressors, all while increasing the sustainability of the crop. Industry and government investment has also uncovered valuable properties of canola products that have increased market demand. Those properties are key to our market development programs globally.

The agri-science cluster is an example of a program in Growing Forward 2 that supports innovation and really creates tangible results. Through the cluster program, government support encourages industry investment through the Canola Council in agronomy research, which supports the entire production base, as well as research on the nutritional benefits of canola oil and meal.

For example, research projects focusing on pest and disease management are looking at how to prevent canola from being destroyed by insects. Without proper management, insects can destroy a field in a matter of hours. We're also funding research on how we can better manage problem insects with other beneficial insects, and it's showing us how beneficial insects can really help in managing the pests and the production challenges.

In addition to enabling valuable research, the cluster program has also helped us share research results through the canola research hub, so that farmers and agronomists can make better management decisions. It's really putting that leading-edge technology within immediate access of the canola industry. The cluster program has created knowledge and put it in the hands of farmers so they can improve their decision-making, and it's an idea that's being picked up by many other crop sectors.

The canola industry as a whole has benefited from a more stable, resilient, sustainable, and productive crop. Canada has benefited by encouraging the industry investment in priority research that has improved our productivity.

It's not just about growing the crops, though; it's also about getting the most value for them in the international market. I did touch on that before in terms of the investment that is uncovering the nutritional and feed properties of our product.

More than 90% of our crop is exported as seed, oil, or meal. This was worth more than $8.9 billion last year, more than three times the value of a decade ago. Our exports are bringing value from international markets to drive growth here in Canada.

In order for industry to thrive and to create more wealth and opportunity, we need to stay competitive with other exporting countries. This requires a stable and open trading environment, with opportunities to showcase the value of canola. Federal leadership to improve market access, both through the programs and through the market access secretariat, which Mr. Halstead referenced, is essential for continued competitiveness.

Through the AgriMarketing program of Growing Forward 2, government support encourages industry investment to improve our access to international markets and to develop markets with potential growth. Under this program, our market development efforts have increased awareness of the value of canola oil and meal in our target markets. We have established a canola oil promotion program in China and Korea that has helped to increase our exports to these markets by $850 million per year over the last five years. It's helped us do things such as bringing food writers and chefs from China and the U.S. to prairie canola fields to show them where the canola comes from and to connect them with our crop.

On the market access side, the AgriMarketing program has helped us maintain and grow our access to international markets such as China. Nobody has heard about any issues we've had with China lately, I'm sure. Just recently, government and industry efforts achieved stable access for canola seed to China until 2020, and that's a $2-billion-a-year market. The AgriMarketing program helped us do things such as host Chinese regulators on incoming missions, fund the research work that drove the results of that agreement, and work on the ground in Beijing towards a solution. The success we achieved by getting stable, science-based canola trade with China shows the importance of that program continuing.

Our success with China is also a testament to the Government of Canada's commitment to science-based rules of trade. The Prime Minister, the trade minister, and the agriculture minister were all important in achieving this success.

Support for resolving market access issues must continue, including adequate resources for the market access secretariat of Agriculture Canada and other government departments, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, that support our international trade efforts. Again, that was a key department in helping us through this recent effort with China. As we look forward to the next policy framework, there's an opportunity to continue the valuable Growing Forward 2 programs supporting research, market development, and market access.

New priorities for the policy framework have also emerged, such as increased attention to value-added processing, as well as the environment and climate change. Our second recommendation is to ensure adequate funding for both the existing priorities and new priorities.

Let's look at value-added processing. The canola sector has shown incredible growth in value-added. Over the last decade, the industry has invested more than $1.3 billion in processing plants—either expansions or new builds—increasing the amount of canola processed in Canada by 150%. While there are opportunities for the framework to facilitate research and innovation that helps processors stay competitive and create jobs in Canada, additional priorities really shouldn't take away resources from the current programs that are having such a positive effect.

In closing, canola shows how innovation can drive growth by meeting international demand. The federal government has a key role to play in the next agricultural policy framework by supporting the key priorities of research and innovation, market development, and market access. By ensuring adequate funding for both existing priorities and new priorities, the next ag policy framework will help the sector continue to create growth and opportunity.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Miller.

Mr. Vander Ploeg, please tell us your story.

[Casey Vander Ploeg]

Thank you very much.

Good morning. I'm Casey Vander Ploeg, and I serve as the manager of policy and research with the National Cattle Feeders' Association. I thank the committee for this opportunity to share our perspective on the new agricultural policy framework.

The NCFA was established in 2007. We serve as the national voice of Canada's cattle feeders. Our activities as an organization are focused on three pillars: growth and sustainability, competitiveness, and industry leadership.

Canada currently has about 10 million head of beef cattle, with 7 million of those on cow-calf operations and 3 million on cattle-feeding operations. In 2015, almost 3 million head of cattle in Canada were processed into beef, and over $4 billion's worth of that beef was exported. The cattle industry contributes about $33 billion annually to the Canadian economy. Dollar for dollar, or pound for pound, beef is perhaps Canada's most valuable agricultural commodity.

With that short background, I would like to focus on two points this morning.

First, I would like to underscore the enormous potential—no, the tremendous potential—that agriculture can have in the Canada of tomorrow. Canada is one of only a handful of nations that are net exporters of food, and our importance as a global breadbasket will only grow. The new agricultural policy framework presents a real opportunity to create a broad, ambitious, and creative vision for agriculture in Canada. I would urge you to see the framework as more than a series of funding programs for specific activities and to consider how the framework can serve as a bold statement and a guiding vision for the future of Canadian agriculture.

Canada has all the ingredients to become an agriculture superpower, and when it comes to beef, we have all of those ingredients in spades. We have a large land base; vast natural grasslands; superior herd genetics; a good supply of feed grains; industry infrastructure; know-how and modern production technologies; a suitable climate; and, an internationally recognized food safety system.

The new framework should set an ambitious goal for Canadian agriculture. Perhaps it would be growing agriculture from its current $100 billion and 7% of GDP to $200 billion and 15% of GDP, or perhaps it would be growing our exports from $60 billion to $100 billion. Ambitious goals, we believe, demonstrate commitment, and such commitment can in turn affirm, validate, energize, and invigorate industry.

Second, I would like to briefly comment on each of the priority areas outlined in the Calgary statement.

Number one is markets and trade. The beef industry certainly supports government efforts to open new export markets. The current industry model has us supplying our own domestic market and then serving as a low-cost supplier into the U.S. market. Going forward, our aim should be to ship high-quality cuts of beef to sophisticated offshore markets where we can command a premium price. This is what will grow Canada's beef industry. Agricultural policy framework funds need to be directed toward ensuring supportive regulations and other policies so trade deals not only can be negotiated but implemented.

Number two is value-added processing. The single biggest challenge facing agriculture today is a lack of labour, particularly in processing facilities. There are over 1,000 vacancies in meat plants across Canada today, and many of those plants are operating at only 70% efficiency. We cannot stay competitive—never mind grow our market share—without the requisite labour. A key area for investment, then, is expanding the labour pool for agriculture by supporting things like the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council's workforce action plan. That plan was created and is currently supported by 75 agriculture and commodity organizations across Canada and contains a roadmap to address our industry's critical labour shortages.

Number three is research and innovation. To pursue growth and sustainability, we need continued investment in research. NCFA supports the beef science cluster and believes that government should renew funding under the new framework. The timing could not be better, as the Beef Cattle Research Council is currently developing its next five-year research strategy. Growing the Canadian beef herd requires investment to increase efficiency, maximize production, enhance environmental stewardship, and conduct research into forage quality, feed additives, animal genetics, and animal health.

Number four is environmental sustainability. Environmental enhancement remains a key consideration for agriculture producers. There is perhaps no industry that has made more efficiency and productivity gains than agriculture. When new policies such as carbon taxes are being discussed, it is important that this be recognized. Since 1981 the beef industry has reduced its GHG emissions by 15% through advancements in technology and management. In 1950 it took 11 pounds of feed and 44 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Today it takes six pounds of feed and eight gallons of water. If we were to produce beef today as we did in 1950, we would need another 45 million acres of land to do it. Funding the sector to adapt to a changing regulatory landscape would be an investment that leverages the considerable drive for efficiency that already exists within the sector.

Number five is risk management. The beef industry has certainly seen its fair share of risk over the past two years, with wild swings in prices for feeder cattle and fed cattle. At no time in recent history have prices risen so fast and so far, only to drop so precipitously and painfully. The average annual loss across the cattle feeding sector is currently running between $500 and $600 per head. Risk management is huge, and that is why the Alberta Cattle Feeders' Association started a new agriculture business risk management program at Lethbridge College. It's also why they developed last year, with municipal and provincial governments, a feedlot emergency preparedness plan.

In such times we do need to ensure that all programs are working for producers, including AgriStability, AgriInvest, and AgriInsurance. A key program for cattle feeders is the western livestock price insurance program. This has been a challenge for us given that so many fed cattle today trade on contract, making price discovery a real issue. Our organization is actively engaged to strengthen price discovery and reporting, recognizing that for beef the risks have never been higher.

Finally, there is public trust. Most Canadians are now three, four, or even five generations removed from the farm. While they are interested in knowing how their food is produced, there's a lot of misunderstanding today about agriculture. The extent to which any business can properly function and generate economic benefits for society depends on its social licence to operate. Such broad social acceptability and local community approval must be earned and maintained through ethical and responsible behaviour, transparency, accountability, and meaningful dialogue. Continued funding of such initiatives as NCFA's Canadian feedlot animal care assessment tool and the funding of new and emerging opportunities like the new Canadian Centre for Food Integrity are essential for agriculture to demonstrate our ethical and social commitments and to strengthen the public's trust.

In conclusion, we believe that the challenge of the new agricultural policy framework is to take these six priorities and weld them together into a broad, ambitious, and creative vision for Canadian agriculture, a vision that goes beyond the sum total of its six parts and reaches beyond for something bigger.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Vander Ploeg.

We will begin our questioning. Perhaps I could ask everyone to identify who they'd like the question to go to, as we have video conferencing.

Mr. Gourde, you have six minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning. Thank you for sharing with us success stories in the canola and beef industries over the past three decades.

I would like you to list, fairly quickly, the strengths and weaknesses of Growing Forward 2. You can spend a little longer talking about the weaknesses and ways the program could be improved, both in the canola and beef sectors.

[Patti Miller]

I can go first. We did touch on some of the strengths in terms of the programs where we would like to see continued investment: the agri-science cluster, support for trade and market access, and market development. Those are really critical areas to maintain the competitiveness of our industry around the globe.

In terms of weaknesses, I think it's always a challenge for the government, which has many competing programs, to come to decisions quickly and to move through that process of supporting industries in a very timely manner. I think that's perhaps as much of a challenge to the popularity and the success of the programs as anything else, because you have a large number of commodities and organizations competing for scarce resources.

I think it's important to remember that agriculture is a high-tech industry. We are a growth industry. People tend to look at agriculture as that historic nice farmer in the field with a pitchfork, but we really are competitive and high tech. Continuing the support in those areas is going to be critical for us.

[Brett Halstead]

In addition to what Patti has commented on, I'd like to focus on the business risk management portion a little more.

As I mentioned in my presentation, we're generally happy with AgriInvest and AgriInsurance. It's the AgriStability that farmers lack confidence in, and it is a potential downfall. There's an uninsured risk out there, and the risk of real damage. Farmers don't want to come hat in hand for an ad hoc program; they would like a stable, predictable program. I think that is what AgriStability was set up to be, but we've seen a consistent reduction in farmers' confidence in terms of using it.

We see a number of reasons for that. It's an insurance program that you pay into, and I don't think that's the end of the world, but it's very difficult to administer. You have to go to an accountant to get the forms done to actually apply for it—that's in addition to your premium—and farmers have seen a lack of predictability in that.

I know the comment has been made in the past that you don't buy house insurance expecting your house to burn down, but if it does burn down, you do expect the payment out of it. That's the way that a lot of farmers have begun to feel about AgriStability: that you're paying for an insurance that's probably never going to trigger. Plus, it's expensive to administer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Vander Ploeg, would you like to comment?

[Casey Vander Ploeg]

From our perspective, a key strength of the ag policy framework is that it pulls together various initiatives, efforts, and activities under a framework. It's more than ad hoc programming. We think there's tremendous value there. It's also an excellent way for industry and government to partner together.

In our sector, one of the key things we've done in partnership with Growing Forward 2 is the development of this new Canadian feedlot animal care assessment tool. It's an industry protocol for animal welfare. It brings together components of the value chain, and it's not just the cattle feeders, but the beef processors as well.

The strength of this new protocol has been recognized internationally. It's now being used in the United States by 50 feedlot operations there that are in a branded beef program. There's a tremendous value as government and industry partner together to address things like public trust and animal welfare.

In terms of particular weaknesses, of course, federal investment in agriculture is only one component of government involvement. We have provincial investments occurring as well, and one thing I have noticed about Growing Forward 2 is simply the length of time it takes for some of the administrative issues that revolve around moving those investments into agriculture and getting them on the ground.

That's perhaps a continual challenge, but comparatively speaking, some have told me—and I've been around the discussions—that interacting with the program and moving the money is perhaps more difficult under Growing Forward 2. Whatever we can do to smooth out that administrivia within the program would be beneficial.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

You have 20 seconds left, Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

No, it's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Very good.

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Thank you, Mr. Vander Ploeg.

We will now go to Mrs. Lockhart for six minutes.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to commend you all for bringing us such positive testimony today. It's very exciting for this committee to hear how confident the agriculture industry is about its products and about our potential in the world. I think that's great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Vander Ploeg, I was really interested to hear you speak about the export to the U.S. of quality cuts of meat at higher prices versus at low cost.

I've just returned from a trip to Taiwan. I spoke to a beef retailer who talked about the quality of Canadian beef and the potential for more exports to Taiwan. Right now, we make up only 1% of Taiwan's beef imports.

How can the APF help increase our market share in some of these offshore markets with this idea in mind of exporting high-quality cuts?

[Casey Vander Ploeg]

That's a very good question, and it's an idea that's definitely top of mind within the industry.

Your comments on China are bang on, quite frankly. I know of one cattle feeder in southern Alberta who has business partners in China. They're working to develop a new branded beef product based on Canadian Angus characteristics for high-end retail and high-end restaurants in China. Their goal, short term, is to ship from up to 10,000 head of beef annually into that market. That's just to start. The medium- to long-term goal is anywhere from 30,000 to 50,000 head annually.

The demand is certainly there; there's simply no question about that. The bigger issue is that it's difficult to supply. A number of things have to come into line. On our end, the beef value chain needs to align to prepare product for those markets. For example, some export markets do not like implants to be used. Certain production technologies are not allowed, so from the calf all the way up to processing there need to be systems of verification in play. The entire beef value chain needs to line up. That's an industry challenge for us, particularly when the country's biggest processors are essentially designed around the model of volume production. Processing capacity for these export markets and actually providing a specific product is a bit of a challenge.

On the processing side, another challenge is approval of various things in the logistics of it such as, for example, cold storage and those sorts of things. Those are all things that we need to do on our end. Investments in terms of expanding processing capacity and helping industry to align itself and produce these products are necessary.

Also, I think we need to do a lot more work on technical issues, the really detailed stuff around our regulations, to facilitate that trade. That's important as well.

Again, a lot of this also lands on the particular market we're exporting to. Sometimes there need to be changes there as well. There's a political dimension to it as well.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Very good.

I'm aware that the cattle industry has taken many steps already to reduce greenhouse emissions. I wonder if you could talk about some of the measures you've taken already and talk about other ways the APF could support further measures or where there might be opportunities.

[Casey Vander Ploeg]

Here, I think, research is critical, as is adaptation and adoption of that new research by the industry. We were fascinated to find out about a research program under way at the Lethbridge agricultural research station, where they're working to develop a particular feed additive that would significantly reduce emissions of methane from cattle. When it comes to GHG emissions, of course, we spend a lot of time talking about carbon and carbon dioxide, but here are other gases as well, and methane is certainly one of those.

The research is ongoing. Now, the question becomes, is it effective? If it is effective, then does it make economic sense for producers to adopt that new technology? A lot of work is already taking place in that area. Of course, the Beef Cattle Research Council, which is the industry's largest research organization, is currently setting its next five-year strategic plan. I'm sure that such issues on the environmental front would be a key part of that as well.

Continued support of industry research and partnering with industry to make advancements in this area are critical.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Vander Ploeg.

Thank you, Mrs. Lockhart.

I would like to welcome Mr. Dusseault, who is stepping in for Ms. Brosseau.

You have six minutes.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here. I'd like to thank the witnesses here today.

My first question is for Mr. Halstead and Ms. Miller. It pertains to the AgriStability program. You made your problems with the program quite clear, especially as regards predictability and accessibility, both of which seem to give you trouble.

Can you suggest any solutions to us? Can you also tell us what you would like to see in the next program? If indeed improvements were made, what would you want them to be? Now that we are familiar with the problems, I would be happy to hear solutions that would make the program better.