Evidence of meeting #3 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 significant.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Greg Meredith  Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Paul Mayers  Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone.

As we had planned, we have with us today people from Agriculture Canada.

We have Mr. Greg Meredith, assistant deputy minister, strategic policy branch. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Mr. Paul Mayers, vice-president of policy and programs.

I understand that we have a short five-minute video. We have a small problem. We do have it in English and French, but we don't have it simultaneously, so we can either play one version first and then go to the other, or, if everybody is comfortable, we can play the English one and if we want we can either skip or do the French one. There has to be unanimous consent.

The French version of the video is also available online, if you want to watch it.

Is that okay, Pierre?

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

No problem.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Do we have unanimous consent to go with that?

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was just looking at the agenda. Could you inform us about the minister? Part of the discussion we had was about when the minister might be able to come with the department head. That obviously didn't work with his schedule.

Could the chair let us know when the minister would be able to come and what sort of agenda follows after what we do today?

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

I believe a request was made. Of course, we have to meet when the minister is available. We're always in contact with Mr. Poissant. As soon as he is available, we'll ensure that we let the members know and have him in.

Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB

I move that a letter be sent to the minister to have him come no later than the next sitting week.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

All in favour of the motion?

Those opposed—

There is a request for a recorded vote.

Mr. Peschisolido.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC

Would it be possible to put forth a friendly amendment to the proposal?

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

No, you have to vote for or against.

I will repeat the motion.

The motion reads that a letter be sent to the minister to have him come no later than the next sitting week.

We will have a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Is there any further business before we move ahead?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC

Mr. Chair, I move that we invite the agriculture minister to attend at his earliest convenience.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

We have a new motion on the floor that we invite the minister to attend the committee at his earliest convenience.

Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

I know that sounds really good, except this is the agriculture committee, and he is the minister for this committee. In the past, in all fairness, ministers were given a time to attend. We always want him to come to the committee. Since the last invitation, the minister has had three weeks to fit an hour into his schedule.

He's the minister, and we're the committee that is responsible for the debate on the agriculture file. I would have trouble voting for that motion. Please understand that I'm not being difficult. It's just that there's a responsibility. I think that the intent here is that we don't have anything booked for the weeks when we come back because the minister would be a part of that discussion. We never heard from the government that he wasn't coming. As a result, the agenda, as I see it, has been left empty.

I'll leave it here. It's your motion, but that would be the reason that we on this side wouldn't support it. We have to give some commitment to this committee.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Mr. Warkentin is next, and then we'll go to Mr. Breton.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB

Thank you. I do appreciate the opportunity.

What we'll find is that ministers always have things to do, so “earliest convenience” may mean next year. What we do note also is that ministers in other departments have made themselves available to their committees. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance has been before his committee. Quite frankly, the finance minister is a lot busier than the agriculture minister these days, so we appreciate the fact that he did show up. Ministers, traditionally, do show up, especially when they're first appointed, to speak to their parliamentary colleagues.

There's a demonstration of some contempt by the minister not giving any indication of a date on which he would speak with his parliamentary colleagues on the record. It is contempt. It's looking like contempt for this committee, and for Parliament as an extension.

We don't want to go down that path. It would be helpful for the minister to be in contact with committee members to let us know when he would make himself available. We don't like to send letters. We don't like to demand that ministers come, but from time to time, when ministers decide not to be engaged with the committee and not to respond to requests from the committee, we do have to get a little bit more aggressive in our language.

I'm not certain that at this point we should leave it to his earliest convenience, in that he didn't have the respect for the committee to even indicate when he would make himself available upon the first request. We will stand by our desire to see him within short order. If the minister all of a sudden makes himself available in due time, we'll respect that he intended to do that and that there was simply a miscommunication with the committee.

However, as it stands now, to communicate that you're not going to....From what we understand, the minister has not made himself available. He didn't give you a date for which he could be available. At some point, we as a committee have a responsibility to our constituents and to the agricultural community across this country to demand that the minister does come.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Mr. Breton.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

It is very clear that we are all interested in hearing the minister's views and questioning him.

However, your motion would compel the minister to come to the committee on a specific date. Our parliamentary secretary and other people are in contact with the minister, and we will ensure that he comes here as soon as possible. We should not be compelling the minister to come to the committee on a specific date.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

Mr. Drouin.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

My comments are along the same lines as my colleague Mr. Breton's.

Asking the minister to come on a precise date without even knowing his agenda is like asking you guys to be in your ridings on March 7. You're going to have some challenges, because you have to be here in the House. We don't know what he's doing that week.

I know we asked the minister to come today, but he couldn't come today. Perhaps he will come that week. We don't know. However, telling him that he must be here at a certain time when he just couldn't make it today.... It's not being unreasonable to say that he's going to come in the following week or the week after that or the week after that. I don't think that he has to be there after the first week that we're back here in Ottawa.

Without seeing his agenda, I think it's ridiculous. I do understand, and we all have a shared desire to see the minister here, but I would follow Joe's proposition. It makes more sense to have him come here at his earliest convenience and it's more reasonable.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Warkentin.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB

I do appreciate that, and I do appreciate that people are busy. However, the minister was invited to a parliamentary committee. He was invited for today. It is customary that if ministers cannot show up at a meeting when they are invited, they provide an alternative date.

The fact that the minister has provided no alternative date is a complete demonstration of contempt for this committee, and as an extension, a contempt for Parliament. I hear my colleagues across the way say, well, if he doesn't show up next week or the next week or the next week, he'll eventually find it convenient to show up here. Frankly, we have a responsibility to hold the minister to account from time to time, and today our job is to ensure that he'll speak to people who have been appointed to this committee and duly elected to this House to answer questions with regard to his mandate and his responsibilities.

As I said, if he intended to show up, he would have offered an alternate date. I think it's highly problematic that he hasn't provided any indication as to whether he will ever show up. Simply saying that we'll leave it up to his earliest convenience leaves it wide open that he may not show up at all.

I would hope that the members opposite would already be on the phone, looking to contact their colleague to see if he wouldn't make himself available so that this debate could end. Clearly he has no intention of showing up, and nobody across the way seems to be making any effort to find out when he would be available. Often somebody on the other side, having spoken to the minister, would know when he would or would not be available. It seems clear that there is a desire not to see the minister attend this meeting any time soon.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

We have a motion on the floor.

All in favour of the motion, please indicate so.

(Motion agreed to)

I think we will now move to our presentation.

I will leave it to you, and we're certainly excited to hear what you have to present.

3:45 p.m.

Greg Meredith Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I can safely say that my colleague Paul Mayers is just as happy as I am to be here today to give you a brief overview of the agriculture and agri-food sector.

What we propose is that I first make a presentation and we then show a video about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I assume that will be okay.

I will take very little time to leave opportunity for members of the committee to pose questions.

For those of you who are new, I think it is very useful to have a bit of a tour d'horizon of the sector. I notice there are a number of members who are veterans in the business, and they can add to and supplement what Mr. Mayers and I have to say. That's the purpose of my presentation.

I do want to lay some context for members beforehand. The sector is a concurrent jurisdiction, meaning that in the constitution, both the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments have responsibilities for agriculture. Hence the sector's best interests are watched out for by governments working in close alignment, which we do in a fairly systematic way. It's a very intensive engagement with provinces and territories, and at the end of the day, it's one that works on behalf of producers.

Contrary to the perception that many in the country have about agriculture, modern agriculture in Canada is very sophisticated. It's very dependent on capital and knowledge, dependent on science, research and development, and dependent on the capacity of tens of thousands of entrepreneurs to innovate, adapt, and compete. It's globally competitive, very dependent on exports, and a very dynamic sector. I'm sure that the finance minister is busy, but I can assure you that the agriculture minister touches on almost every imaginable portfolio that a government deals with. From a trade policy perspective, the government is very involved, as is the agriculture minister. From the point of view of social policy and ensuring jobs and employment and growth, the minister is very busy.

From the point of view of science, our department is very intensely focused on research and development. The sector, in its various incarnations across the country, presents a vast array of interests and a vast array of issues for a minister to deal with.

Just by way of giving you some context, I'll tell you that the economic importance of the sector is significant. It contributes almost $110 billion to GDP. That includes the primary sector, the processing sector, input suppliers, and others. It accounts for about one in eight jobs in the country. As you can see, it's a very significant player in terms of the economy and jobs across the country. It's also a significant player in virtually every province, although the intensity with which a province is dependent on agriculture for its economic growth varies across the country. You can see that provinces from Quebec west rely a little more heavily on agriculture as a contributor to their economy than do the eastern provinces. What we'll see later is that from an employment point of view, there's a very significant reliance on agriculture and food processing.

This graph reflects the diversity of agriculture across Canada. There are some areas like western Canada and central Canada where beef production is prevalent. Hog and pig farming tends to be focused in Manitoba and Quebec, with a great deal in Ontario as well. Right across the country, dairy is an important sector, but very much so in Ontario and Quebec.

Large grains and oilseeds operations obviously predominate in the west. Horticulture operations are more common in B.C. and central Canada, but are actually common everywhere.

In Atlantic Canada you'll see a significant horticulture presence, including in potatoes and other vegetables. You'll see a significant presence for supply-managed industries as well. Virtually every province has a major stake in the health of the agriculture sector.

I mentioned to you that the sector is very knowledge intensive. A study that we did from 2011 to 2013 showed that nearly half of Canadian farms had implemented some form of significant innovation. That has to do with production practices such as improved agronomics, improved genetics for livestock and crops, and managing with more sophisticated business tools and business models. I should add that innovation really is the source of our competitive advantage worldwide.

We have a significant number of competitors. We're the fifth-largest exporter of agriculture and food in the world, but in the beef sector, for example, Brazil is a very productive country. We compete with their beef production on the basis of quality, not quantity.

We have significant competitors all around the world in major grains and oilseeds. Emerging economies, such as the Kazakhstani, Russian, and Ukrainian food belt, are very highly productive. That area has very rich soils and has the potential to be a significant competitor for Canada. Our ability to stay ahead of them will depend on innovation alone, because our agronomic practices are just about as sophisticated as they can be.

I would like to take you through a bit of history, and I know that this is always a sensitive issue for decision-makers and policy-makers. The number of farms is declining, while the average farm size is increasing fairly significantly. That generally says to people that the small family farm is being threatened.

To that, I would just add a couple of nuances. One is that the attrition that we see is not from small family farms going out of business or being bought up by big farms. It's more the medium-sized businesses, those in the $100-thousand-plus range of annual revenue, that are seeing some consolidation and growth into larger farms.

The other thing I would underscore is that most farms really remain family owned. They take on different business models or different business structures, such as partnerships, but you'll very often see families owning corporations that are “the family farm”. Families, as an ownership entity, are very predominant. The majority of farms are family owned and are not owned by some third party corporate entity, even though their business structures might be slightly different.

As I indicated, farming across the country is very diversified.

Another reflection of that is where farms earn their money, which is predominantly in grains and oilseeds and in red meat, namely pork and beef production. At least a third of market receipts in primary farm commodities are earned by those two sectors.

Supply management, which is of great importance across the country, represents about one-fifth, or 20%, of farm market receipts. Other significant sectors are fruits and vegetables and special crops, which are growing in importance. Special crops, including pulses and what used to be other smaller marginal crops are growing into major crops now.

The farm sector has been growing fairly significantly over the past 10 years. Grains and oilseed receipts have almost tripled, despite significant challenges with respect to weather. Red meat has grown at a slightly more moderate pace, but has pulled away from the doldrums that producers were experiencing in the 2008-2009 period. They have seen some significant growth in price and market growth.

As I just mentioned, special crops, including such crops as pulses, have grown significantly as well, reaching almost 15% over the past decade.

Farmers are generally doing very well. They have a net worth, on average, of nearly $2.5 million in assets after debt, which is higher than that of the average Canadian family. Net cash income has been very high. It is expected to reach a record once all the numbers are in for 2015, and it was at near-record highs in 2014.

Most recently, the sector has experienced some pressure on major commodity prices globally, but a couple of macroeconomic issues have intervened in favour of farmers and their income. One is the state of the dollar. The falling dollar has meant that exports from Canada are more competitive, and that's a bonus for farmers, as difficult as it is for our manufacturing sector. The cost of inputs, the cost of running a farm, is significantly dependent on energy costs, so the more affordable energy situation, especially with respect to oil, is advantageous from a farmer's point of view.

Nevertheless the confluence of high demand, extremely efficient farming, and those macroeconomic conditions have conspired to make farmers fairly successful in the past little while. I've already shown you that net worth has been increasing, so that's a very strong, positive issue. The concern for the department with respect to the growth in assets on the farm is how it is financed. A large part of it is financed by debt. We've done some stress testing on the amount of debt that Canadian farms have—what-if scenarios, such as “what if interest rates were to rise significantly”—and we found that given the productivity that Canadian farms demonstrate, most would be in a fairly stable position to service debt.

I can tell you that banks, the FCC, and credit unions across the country do the same kind of work with farmers just to ensure that their debt load doesn't overcome income and cash flow.

Looking to the future, some major trends are affecting what we think will be continued commodity growth. I'll dwell on this for one minute.

Some of the major drivers for change—I'll show you a bit later—are in the developing world. We see continued demand for red meat. A population graduating into the middle-income group ends up changing diets in favour of Canadian-based types of commodities. Globally we see steady but slow growth in the developed world in commodity consumption, but real growth in the developing world.

I will briefly turn to the food and beverage processing side. Food and beverage processing is a major employer across the country in virtually every province. It's also the consumer of at least a third of the primary production in any given commodity, and in many smaller local or regional areas, it's well more than half. Therefore, the processing sector is an anchor consumer for the primary sector, and the relationship between the two is very significantly tied to the ability of primary producers to earn an income and the ability of food and beverage processors to stay competitive.

Food and beverage processing is the single largest manufacturing sector measured by employment. A graph here shows you the presence of food and beverage processing plants across the country. As I mentioned, they play a significant role in the economy of virtually every province; in the territories, their role is slightly less.

The contribution of food processing to provincial GDP varies, even though it's an important employer. It's about 2% across all the provinces. It's highest in P.E.I., where there's a reliance on potato farming and some supply management, and it's lowest in Alberta. That's probably changed, by the way, with the recent restructuring that the Alberta economy is undergoing.

A wide variety of products is produced by the Canadian food and beverage processing sector. Meat, dairy, and beverages contribute about half of the total value of shipments of our food and beverage processing of about $103 billion. Those particular sectors are quite significant contributors to provincial economies.

The challenge for Canada is that the majority of our food and beverage processing plants are small. The majority of output is driven by large firms, but the majority of operations are small. That means small to medium-sized enterprises and it means entrepreneurs creating jobs for Canadians in an industry that can be quite challenging from a competitive point of view.

The challenge for governments, of course, is that in addressing this sector and in trying to ensure growth and economic competitiveness, there's a wide diversity of challenges, ranging from the size of the operation to the commodity that's being processed.

I'll skip the related slide in the interest of time and go to slide 19.

I mentioned earlier that this sector is very trade dependent. More than half of our production is exported, and in some commodities upwards of 85% to 90% of Canadian domestic production is exported abroad. It's very significant for many commodities, and, as I mentioned, we're the fifth-largest exporter of agricultural and agri-food products in the world.

The U.S. is still our most dependent destination. In other words, we're the most dependent upon the U.S. for about half of our production, but what I would add by way of context is that in comparison with other sectors, we're actually far more diversified. Canada's export performance depends upon the sector, but on average it's around 75% or 76% dependent upon the U.S. market, whereas the Canadian sector is considerably more diversified.

I mentioned earlier that the developing world is the source of most of the forecast growth for the future. What we've put on slide 21 is an infographic describing where the middle class currently is located. Each one of those person-like figures represents $1 trillion U.S. of consumptive capacity. You can see where they're currently located. You can see that today a relatively small proportion of the middle class and of middle-class buying power is located in the developing world, which would include Southeast Asia, Africa, and some of the Middle East.

Compare that with 2030, when two-thirds of the global middle class will be in the Asia Pacific region. In fact, if you drew a circle—you could imagine the area—encompassing southern China and a bit of India and Indonesia, there are more people living in that area now than in the rest of the world.

Those markets are quite critical for Canadian exports of agricultural and agri-food products. When more disposable income is available to middle-class income-earners, their diets change. Their proteins change towards meats and their consumption of oil changes towards healthy oils such as canola, which we ship from Canada, so Canada stands to benefit enormously from the growth in population and wealth in that particular region.

In conclusion, I want to go back to some of my opening remarks. The sector really is populated by tens of thousands of entrepreneurs who are very competitive on a global basis. Their use of very sophisticated business models and very sophisticated technology makes them some of the most productive farmers in the world. We're an important player, and there's a considerable amount of opportunity for future growth.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Mayers' presentation.