Agriculture Committee on Feb. 24th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

In my province, as we see across the country, there are the organic and specialty growers, with small family farms making specialty cheese and such. I know that when we talk about the average value of a farm, we're talking about a couple of million, but for these we're not talking about quite as much. I think the net take-home income is still significant enough to permit farmers to live off a small family farm. They're very highly productive.

How does Agriculture Canada do this? Do you segregate these? How do you look at these smaller farms we're seeing that are run by very young farmers? I know that in my area, they're organic, especially, and they're smaller farms.

[Greg Meredith]

That's a complex question. I think I alluded earlier in my presentation to the challenges of diversity. From the perspective of our international trade obligations, our programs that deliver in-support funding—what we call business risk management programs—have to be designed to be whole-farm. In other words, they can't be directed at, say, the horticulture farm or the cow-calf farm. They have to be whole-farm. They have to be regionally available. You can't have one regional area having access to a program that another doesn't.

That sometimes makes it challenging for small farms to access those programs. We're looking at how those business risk management programs are working right now, for two reasons. One is that federal, provincial, and territorial ministers tasked officials to do that back when they established Growing Forward 2, but on top of that, the current government has directed my minister to look specifically at business risk management programs to determine if they're working for all farms.

That's one area. The other area is the issue of certification.

I won't impose on Paul as I did before, chicken heart that I was. [Technical difficulty] ...recognized, with the backing of CFIA, even though it's voluntary. I think that's very important for small niche farms.

We also have a program called the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act program, or CALA. I'm a bureaucrat, so I remember acronyms. The point of the program is to make funding accessible to young farmers who are purchasing assets such as on-farm capital assets. CALA is designed to facilitate the entry of young farmers, regardless of scale. It's scale independent.

I think the other source of support is in the cost-shared programming, to which we contribute 60 cents on every dollar for each province. We have agreed with provinces that we've established a series of policy outcomes that we all adhere to, but we've given provinces flexibility in how they reach those outcomes.

I would guess that most provinces have programming that is designed to help small farms stay productive. You're quite right that a family running a small farm may not be able to live exclusively off that farm, but generally speaking they can have a profitable farm, and that's supplemented by off-farm income.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I thank you very much.

For my invited guests, let me say that this was a great presentation. I'm sure that we've all learned from it. As I said, I've been involved in farming all my life, but when I look at the spread of our country, I think agriculture touches all sectors. This has been very informative.

If you don't mind, we will suspend for two minutes to allow our guests to leave, and then we'll resume our business of the day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We shall resume our meeting.

Just to remind you, we're in public. This is not in camera.

I have one motion that we need moved.

I will read it:

That the Committee cover the cost, up to a maximum of $75, for the gift offered to the representative at the working lunch on Monday, February 22, 2016, with the delegation from the Mexican Secretariat of Agriculture.

All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

The gift that he gave me is a book. I haven't had a chance to read it, but if anybody is interested in looking at it, I could certainly bring it to a meeting.

You all have a proposed schedule that we can look at if you wish. As you see, there are dates on the schedule for the month of March. We have March 7, 9, 21, and 23. We can start by filling March 7, if you wish. We have about another 10 minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

There are two things that should be in our view.

Supplementary estimates have to be reported back to the House by March 21, so the only two dates to review and vote on supplementary estimates would be March 7 and 9. It would be better if we did it on March 7, just so that days don't get moved around and we miss the opportunity to review the estimates before they're referred back to the House.

The other thing is that main estimates are available as of today, so we'll want to schedule that in. It is customary for ministers to be here to defend the estimates, both supplementary and main.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

That is one suggestion.

Is there anything else that could be added to the agenda?

Are there any other thoughts?

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

I don't want to propose to go into something that's in a study, but I think—to Madame Brosseau's point, and I know for me as well—milk protein is extremely important. I'm sure I can get the support of my colleagues and hopefully of Madame Brosseau. I don't know if it's a study, but I think that we at least need to have more information from the departments that are involved in this issue to find out what the strategy is. Perhaps we can get some recommendations.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I think that sounds like an interesting day. We could have have some witnesses come from the department to give us a briefing on milk proteins.

I would propose that on March 7 we invite the minister and the departmental officials to do supplementary estimates so that we can vote on those and get them back to the House by March 21. On March 9, I propose that we hold a milk proteins discussion and hear from officials with regard to the challenges that have been identified by different members. That would at least fill up those two days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Go ahead, Madame Brosseau.

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

I'm all for looking at the issue of milk proteins, but I think the industry has proposed some solutions. This is a problem that has been going on for over two years. I don't know who we would invite. I know my constituents in Quebec, where we have Union des Producteurs Agricoles. I'm sure you have all met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Those are the experts, right?

We just had CFIA and Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food officials, and they couldn't tell us. I'm not against having a meeting; I'm just weighing the pros and cons. What is going to come out of it?

Maybe the parliamentary secretary could speak about what's going on. You probably have an inside scoop, right?

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Ultimately, more than one department is involved, which is why it would be interesting to hear from officials with the Department of Global Affairs, as well as customs officials.

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

Yes, if they are available.

What we want is action.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Drouin, would you like to add something?

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

I hear what you are saying, Ms. Brosseau, but I would point out that the committee did a study in 2006 and proposed a strategy that did not work. The problem of milk proteins or diafiltered milk has been around for a long time. We are still talking about it in 2016, and I hope we will finish talking about it in the upcoming term.

I would just like to understand the history to ensure that the department and the committee have a good idea of the strategy that will be adopted to address this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks for reminding us that we're not in camera.

I know of an opportunity that's a capital investment for Canada around milk protein. It might be informed by some of the work of the committee if we're able to attract that investment. We've touched a little bit on, and I think we'll continue to touch on, the economic opportunities that might present themselves to this committee and how we can help to coordinate some of those activities, either by bringing in the experts from the field or bringing back some more experts from the ministry, if there's a blockage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Go ahead, Joe.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd also like to have an opportunity to go back and have a good conversation with Mr. Mayers on the workings of CFIA. I was intrigued by Madame Brosseau's questions. Due to time, there was an inability to answer questions on inspectors.

Basically, I'd like a systematic look at how the CFIA works, for two reasons. Number one, I think it's important for the branding of our exports. I think consumers also want to get a sense of how the animals are treated, and also the safety component. They want to know that what they're eating is healthy. I don't think we got a full sense of it from Mr. Mayers.

I don't know about the timing of it. I think, though, I'd like to have Mr. Drouin's proposal first, because I think that's more time sensitive. Then at a certain point, I'd like to have a systematic look at how the CFIA works.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Peschisolido.

Mr. Warkentin is next.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

We are looking into the longer term, but I still think it's important for us to have an opportunity to take a look at Trans-Pacific Partnership. Obviously the ministers, both the agriculture minister and the trade minister, have made great and extensive comments about the necessity for consultation with specific industries. I think we could play an important role in terms of having a conversation across this country on the impacts and the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as it can now be reviewed.

It is a timing issue, though, because if we want our consultations to have any impact on the decision of the minister, we would have to be expeditious in getting it done before she makes her final decision. I would recommend that we undertake a consideration of that study. There's opportunity right away to start with a couple of these one-offs, but if we're looking at a longer study, one that's time-sensitive would be on the issues surrounding TPP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We're almost out of time.

Go ahead, Joe.

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

I would echo Mr. Warkentin's comments. I think we need to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

If we want to fill in the blanks, we'll need to come up with a proposal as to what we want to do on March 7.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I would propose a motion.

I don't want to lock you, as chair, into any specific dates at this point. I think we would trust you to determine, with the clerk, the availability on these different things. I think there's consensus with regard to the milk proteins discussion. Maybe if different members have different suggestions in terms of who would be good witnesses, we can all feed that in. If we had a panel of people for two hours, I think that would be sufficient, at least to get the understanding of what the issues are.

I think the supplementary estimates can be boring for members, but I think it's a responsibility to review the supplementary estimates of every department. We have a responsibility to do that before March 21, because they need to be reported back. If we don't do that, then they're deemed reported without our having looked at them, which we don't want to have happen. I think we could fit in those two different meetings between March 7 and March 9.

If there's a willingness, and I'm sensing there might be, we can start on a study with regard to the impacts and the benefits—we can wordsmith whatever the consensus of the committee will be—of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the impact and benefits for Canadian agriculture. Different stakeholders in every part of this country have different views on the TPP. They have the text. The minister has said that we're going to have comprehensive hearings. I think we could play an important role in doing that.

We could maybe meet as a subcommittee. We might take half a meeting for supplementary estimates, and then for half a meeting we'd do an in camera subcommittee meeting and start to put some meat on the bones of what a study might look like.

That's what I would propose. I'm happy to consider any amendments or thoughts with regard to that idea, but I think that might be a constructive way to move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Are we in agreement? Would the subcommittee meeting take up a whole meeting? What's your experience?